Cargando…

A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy

OBJECTIVE: Analytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses. METHOD: The TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty‐five...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Langner, Ulrich W., Mundis, Michelle, Strauss, Dan, Zhu, Mingyao, Mossahebi, Sina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29205763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12235
_version_ 1783292632263294976
author Langner, Ulrich W.
Mundis, Michelle
Strauss, Dan
Zhu, Mingyao
Mossahebi, Sina
author_facet Langner, Ulrich W.
Mundis, Michelle
Strauss, Dan
Zhu, Mingyao
Mossahebi, Sina
author_sort Langner, Ulrich W.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Analytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses. METHOD: The TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty‐five typical plans were made with each planning system, 31 without range shifter and four with a 5 cm range shifter. Point doses in these planes were compared to measured doses. RESULTS: The mean percentage difference for all plans between Raystation and Eclipse were 1.51 ± 1.99%. The mean percentage difference for all plans between TPS models and measured values are −2.06 ± 1.48% for Raystation pencil beam (PB), −0.59 ± 1.71% for Eclipse and −1.69 ± 1.11% for Raystation monte carlo (MC). The distribution for the patient plans were similar for Eclipse and Raystation MC with a P‐value of 0.59 for a two tailed unpaired t‐test and significantly different from the Raystation PB model with P = 0.0013 between Raystation MC and PB. All three models faired markedly better if plans with a 5 cm range shifter were ignored. Plan comparisons with a 5 cm range shifter give differences between Raystation and Eclipse of 3.77 ± 1.82%. The mean percentage difference for 5 cm range shifter plans between TPS models and measured values are −3.89 ± 2.79% for Raystation PB, −0.25 ± 3.85% for Eclipse and 1.55 ± 1.95% for Raystation MC. CONCLUSION: Both Eclipse and Raystation PB TPS are not always accurate within ±3% for a 5 cm range shifters or for small targets. This was improved with the Raystation MC model. The point dose calculations of Eclipse, Raystation PB, and Raystation MC compare within ±3% to measured doses for the other scenarios tested.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5768005
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57680052018-04-02 A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy Langner, Ulrich W. Mundis, Michelle Strauss, Dan Zhu, Mingyao Mossahebi, Sina J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics OBJECTIVE: Analytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses. METHOD: The TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty‐five typical plans were made with each planning system, 31 without range shifter and four with a 5 cm range shifter. Point doses in these planes were compared to measured doses. RESULTS: The mean percentage difference for all plans between Raystation and Eclipse were 1.51 ± 1.99%. The mean percentage difference for all plans between TPS models and measured values are −2.06 ± 1.48% for Raystation pencil beam (PB), −0.59 ± 1.71% for Eclipse and −1.69 ± 1.11% for Raystation monte carlo (MC). The distribution for the patient plans were similar for Eclipse and Raystation MC with a P‐value of 0.59 for a two tailed unpaired t‐test and significantly different from the Raystation PB model with P = 0.0013 between Raystation MC and PB. All three models faired markedly better if plans with a 5 cm range shifter were ignored. Plan comparisons with a 5 cm range shifter give differences between Raystation and Eclipse of 3.77 ± 1.82%. The mean percentage difference for 5 cm range shifter plans between TPS models and measured values are −3.89 ± 2.79% for Raystation PB, −0.25 ± 3.85% for Eclipse and 1.55 ± 1.95% for Raystation MC. CONCLUSION: Both Eclipse and Raystation PB TPS are not always accurate within ±3% for a 5 cm range shifters or for small targets. This was improved with the Raystation MC model. The point dose calculations of Eclipse, Raystation PB, and Raystation MC compare within ±3% to measured doses for the other scenarios tested. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5768005/ /pubmed/29205763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12235 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Langner, Ulrich W.
Mundis, Michelle
Strauss, Dan
Zhu, Mingyao
Mossahebi, Sina
A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy
title A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy
title_full A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy
title_fullStr A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy
title_short A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy
title_sort comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768005/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29205763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12235
work_keys_str_mv AT langnerulrichw acomparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT mundismichelle acomparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT straussdan acomparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT zhumingyao acomparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT mossahebisina acomparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT langnerulrichw comparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT mundismichelle comparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT straussdan comparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT zhumingyao comparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy
AT mossahebisina comparisonoftwopencilbeamscanningtreatmentplanningsystemsforprotontherapy