Cargando…
Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons
PURPOSE: This work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34482555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.15209 |
_version_ | 1784749057653080064 |
---|---|
author | Ruangchan, Sirinya Palmans, Hugo Knäusl, Barbara Georg, Dietmar Clausen, Monika |
author_facet | Ruangchan, Sirinya Palmans, Hugo Knäusl, Barbara Georg, Dietmar Clausen, Monika |
author_sort | Ruangchan, Sirinya |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: This work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons is performed considering current best solutions in commercial TPS. METHODS: All treatment plans were optimized and calculated using the RayStation TPS (RaySearch, Sweden). The dose distributions calculated with the TPS were compared with measurements using a 24‐pinpoint ionization chamber array (T31015, PTW, Germany). Tissue‐like inhomogeneities (bone, lung, and soft tissue) were embedded in water, while a target volume of 4 x 4 x 4 cm(3) was defined at two different depths behind the heterogeneities. In total, 10 different test cases, with and without range shifter as well as different air gaps, were investigated. Dose distributions inside as well as behind the target volume were evaluated. RESULTS: Inside the target volume, the mean dose difference between calculations and measurements, averaged over all test cases, was 1.6% for carbon ions. This compares well to the final agreement of 1.5% obtained in water at the commissioning stage of the TPS for carbon ions and is also within the clinically acceptable interval of 3%. The mean dose difference and maximal dose difference obtained outside the target area were 1.8% and 13.4%, respectively. The agreement of dose distributions for carbon ions in the target volumes was comparable or better to that between Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and measurements for protons. Percentage dose differences of more than 10% were present outside the target area behind bone–lung structures, where the carbon ion calculations systematically over predicted the dose. MC dose calculations for protons were superior to carbon ion beams outside the target volumes. CONCLUSION: The pencil beam dose calculations for carbon ions in RayStation were found to be in good agreement with dosimetric measurements in heterogeneous geometries for points of interest located within the target. Large local discrepancies behind the target may contribute to incorrect dose predictions for organs at risk. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9291072 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92910722022-07-20 Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons Ruangchan, Sirinya Palmans, Hugo Knäusl, Barbara Georg, Dietmar Clausen, Monika Med Phys COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY PURPOSE: This work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons is performed considering current best solutions in commercial TPS. METHODS: All treatment plans were optimized and calculated using the RayStation TPS (RaySearch, Sweden). The dose distributions calculated with the TPS were compared with measurements using a 24‐pinpoint ionization chamber array (T31015, PTW, Germany). Tissue‐like inhomogeneities (bone, lung, and soft tissue) were embedded in water, while a target volume of 4 x 4 x 4 cm(3) was defined at two different depths behind the heterogeneities. In total, 10 different test cases, with and without range shifter as well as different air gaps, were investigated. Dose distributions inside as well as behind the target volume were evaluated. RESULTS: Inside the target volume, the mean dose difference between calculations and measurements, averaged over all test cases, was 1.6% for carbon ions. This compares well to the final agreement of 1.5% obtained in water at the commissioning stage of the TPS for carbon ions and is also within the clinically acceptable interval of 3%. The mean dose difference and maximal dose difference obtained outside the target area were 1.8% and 13.4%, respectively. The agreement of dose distributions for carbon ions in the target volumes was comparable or better to that between Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and measurements for protons. Percentage dose differences of more than 10% were present outside the target area behind bone–lung structures, where the carbon ion calculations systematically over predicted the dose. MC dose calculations for protons were superior to carbon ion beams outside the target volumes. CONCLUSION: The pencil beam dose calculations for carbon ions in RayStation were found to be in good agreement with dosimetric measurements in heterogeneous geometries for points of interest located within the target. Large local discrepancies behind the target may contribute to incorrect dose predictions for organs at risk. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-23 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9291072/ /pubmed/34482555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.15209 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY Ruangchan, Sirinya Palmans, Hugo Knäusl, Barbara Georg, Dietmar Clausen, Monika Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons |
title | Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons |
title_full | Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons |
title_fullStr | Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons |
title_full_unstemmed | Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons |
title_short | Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons |
title_sort | dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: comparing carbon ions with protons |
topic | COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34482555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.15209 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ruangchansirinya dosecalculationaccuracyinparticletherapycomparingcarbonionswithprotons AT palmanshugo dosecalculationaccuracyinparticletherapycomparingcarbonionswithprotons AT knauslbarbara dosecalculationaccuracyinparticletherapycomparingcarbonionswithprotons AT georgdietmar dosecalculationaccuracyinparticletherapycomparingcarbonionswithprotons AT clausenmonika dosecalculationaccuracyinparticletherapycomparingcarbonionswithprotons |