Cargando…
Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy
PURPOSE: To assess treatment planning system (TPS) accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio (SPR) of immobilization devices commonly used in proton therapy and to evaluate the dosimetric effect of SPR estimation error for a set of clinical treatment plans. METHODS: Computed tomography scans o...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9924110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36593751 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13831 |
_version_ | 1784887827276759040 |
---|---|
author | Jiang, Kai MacFarlane, Michael Mossahebi, Sina Zakhary, Mark J. |
author_facet | Jiang, Kai MacFarlane, Michael Mossahebi, Sina Zakhary, Mark J. |
author_sort | Jiang, Kai |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To assess treatment planning system (TPS) accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio (SPR) of immobilization devices commonly used in proton therapy and to evaluate the dosimetric effect of SPR estimation error for a set of clinical treatment plans. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of selected clinical immobilization devices were acquired. Then, the water‐equivalent thickness (WET) and SPR values of these devices based on the scans were estimated in a commercial TPS. The reference SPR of each device was measured using a multilayer ion chamber (MLIC), and the differences between measured and TPS‐estimated SPRs were calculated. These findings were utilized to calculate corrected dose distributions of 15 clinical proton plans for three treatment sites: extremity, abdomen, and head‐and‐neck. The original and corrected dose distributions were compared using a set of target and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameters. RESULTS: On average, the TPS‐estimated SPR was 19.5% lower (range, −35.1% to 0.2%) than the MLIC‐measured SPR. Due to the relatively low density of most immobilization devices used, the WET error was typically <1 mm, but up to 2.2 mm in certain devices. Overriding the SPR of the immobilization devices to the measured values did not result in significant changes in the DVH metrics of targets and most OARs. However, some critical OARs showed noticeable changes of up to 6.7% in maximum dose. CONCLUSIONS: The TPS tends to underestimate the SPR of selected proton immobilization devices by an average of about 20%, but this does not induce major WET errors because of the low density of the devices. The dosimetric effect of this SPR error was negligible for most treatment sites, although the maximum dose of a few OARs exhibited noticeable variations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9924110 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99241102023-02-14 Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy Jiang, Kai MacFarlane, Michael Mossahebi, Sina Zakhary, Mark J. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: To assess treatment planning system (TPS) accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio (SPR) of immobilization devices commonly used in proton therapy and to evaluate the dosimetric effect of SPR estimation error for a set of clinical treatment plans. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of selected clinical immobilization devices were acquired. Then, the water‐equivalent thickness (WET) and SPR values of these devices based on the scans were estimated in a commercial TPS. The reference SPR of each device was measured using a multilayer ion chamber (MLIC), and the differences between measured and TPS‐estimated SPRs were calculated. These findings were utilized to calculate corrected dose distributions of 15 clinical proton plans for three treatment sites: extremity, abdomen, and head‐and‐neck. The original and corrected dose distributions were compared using a set of target and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameters. RESULTS: On average, the TPS‐estimated SPR was 19.5% lower (range, −35.1% to 0.2%) than the MLIC‐measured SPR. Due to the relatively low density of most immobilization devices used, the WET error was typically <1 mm, but up to 2.2 mm in certain devices. Overriding the SPR of the immobilization devices to the measured values did not result in significant changes in the DVH metrics of targets and most OARs. However, some critical OARs showed noticeable changes of up to 6.7% in maximum dose. CONCLUSIONS: The TPS tends to underestimate the SPR of selected proton immobilization devices by an average of about 20%, but this does not induce major WET errors because of the low density of the devices. The dosimetric effect of this SPR error was negligible for most treatment sites, although the maximum dose of a few OARs exhibited noticeable variations. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9924110/ /pubmed/36593751 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13831 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 Jiang, Kai MacFarlane, Michael Mossahebi, Sina Zakhary, Mark J. Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy |
title | Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy |
title_full | Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy |
title_short | Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy |
title_sort | evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping‐power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9924110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36593751 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13831 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jiangkai evaluationoftreatmentplanningsystemaccuracyinestimatingthestoppingpowerratioofimmobilizationdevicesforprotontherapy AT macfarlanemichael evaluationoftreatmentplanningsystemaccuracyinestimatingthestoppingpowerratioofimmobilizationdevicesforprotontherapy AT mossahebisina evaluationoftreatmentplanningsystemaccuracyinestimatingthestoppingpowerratioofimmobilizationdevicesforprotontherapy AT zakharymarkj evaluationoftreatmentplanningsystemaccuracyinestimatingthestoppingpowerratioofimmobilizationdevicesforprotontherapy |