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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Kai, MacFarlane, Michael, Mossahebi, Sina, Zakhary, Mark J.
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