Cargando…
Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning
Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9121035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35213089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13572 |
_version_ | 1784711068472311808 |
---|---|
author | Feygelman, Vladimir Latifi, Kujtim Bowers, Mark Greco, Kevin Moros, Eduardo G. Isacson, Max Angerud, Agnes Caudell, Jimmy |
author_facet | Feygelman, Vladimir Latifi, Kujtim Bowers, Mark Greco, Kevin Moros, Eduardo G. Isacson, Max Angerud, Agnes Caudell, Jimmy |
author_sort | Feygelman, Vladimir |
collection | PubMed |
description | Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissue, the switch to MC presents challenges in preserving the parameters of care. The differences in dose‐to‐tissue were widely discussed in the literature, but mostly in the context of recalculating the existing plans rather than reoptimizing with the MC dose engine. Also, the target dose homogeneity received less attention. We adhere to strict dose homogeneity objectives in clinical practice. In this study, we started with 21 clinical volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans previously developed in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Those plans were recalculated “as is” with RayStation (RS) MC algorithm and then reoptimized in RS with both collapsed cone (CC) and MC algorithms. MC statistical uncertainty (0.3%) was selected carefully to balance the dose computation time (1–2 min) with the planning target volume (PTV) dose‐volume histogram (DVH) shape approaching that of a “noise‐free” calculation. When the hot spot in head and neck MC‐based treatment planning is defined as dose to 0.03 cc, it is exceedingly difficult to limit it to 105% of the prescription dose, as we were used to with the CC algorithm. The average hot spot after optimization and calculation with RS MC was statistically significantly higher compared to Pinnacle and RS CC algorithms by 1.2 and 1.0 %, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) observed in this study suggests that in most cases a hot spot of ≤107% is achievable. Compared to the 95% CI for the previous clinical plans recalculated with RS MC “as is” (upper limit 108%), in real terms this result is at least as good or better than the historic plans. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9121035 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91210352022-05-21 Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning Feygelman, Vladimir Latifi, Kujtim Bowers, Mark Greco, Kevin Moros, Eduardo G. Isacson, Max Angerud, Agnes Caudell, Jimmy J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissue, the switch to MC presents challenges in preserving the parameters of care. The differences in dose‐to‐tissue were widely discussed in the literature, but mostly in the context of recalculating the existing plans rather than reoptimizing with the MC dose engine. Also, the target dose homogeneity received less attention. We adhere to strict dose homogeneity objectives in clinical practice. In this study, we started with 21 clinical volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans previously developed in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Those plans were recalculated “as is” with RayStation (RS) MC algorithm and then reoptimized in RS with both collapsed cone (CC) and MC algorithms. MC statistical uncertainty (0.3%) was selected carefully to balance the dose computation time (1–2 min) with the planning target volume (PTV) dose‐volume histogram (DVH) shape approaching that of a “noise‐free” calculation. When the hot spot in head and neck MC‐based treatment planning is defined as dose to 0.03 cc, it is exceedingly difficult to limit it to 105% of the prescription dose, as we were used to with the CC algorithm. The average hot spot after optimization and calculation with RS MC was statistically significantly higher compared to Pinnacle and RS CC algorithms by 1.2 and 1.0 %, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) observed in this study suggests that in most cases a hot spot of ≤107% is achievable. Compared to the 95% CI for the previous clinical plans recalculated with RS MC “as is” (upper limit 108%), in real terms this result is at least as good or better than the historic plans. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9121035/ /pubmed/35213089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13572 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://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 Feygelman, Vladimir Latifi, Kujtim Bowers, Mark Greco, Kevin Moros, Eduardo G. Isacson, Max Angerud, Agnes Caudell, Jimmy Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning |
title | Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning |
title_full | Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning |
title_fullStr | Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning |
title_full_unstemmed | Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning |
title_short | Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning |
title_sort | maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a monte carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9121035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35213089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13572 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT feygelmanvladimir maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning AT latifikujtim maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning AT bowersmark maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning AT grecokevin maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning AT moroseduardog maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning AT isacsonmax maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning AT angerudagnes maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning AT caudelljimmy maintainingdosimetricqualitywhenswitchingtoamontecarlodoseengineforheadandneckvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanning |