Evaluation of monte carlo to support commissioning of the treatment planning system of new pencil beam scanning proton therapy facilities

被引:0
|
作者
Botnariuc, D. [1 ,2 ]
Court, S. [3 ]
Lourenco, A. [1 ,2 ]
Gosling, A. [3 ]
Royle, G. [1 ]
Hussein, M. [2 ]
Rompokos, V [3 ]
Veiga, C. [1 ]
机构
[1] UCL, Dept Med Phys & Biomed Engn, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT, England
[2] Metrol Med Phys Ctr, Natl Phys Lab, Hampton Rd, Teddington TW11 0LW, England
[3] Univ Coll London Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Radiotherapy Phys Serv, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England
来源
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY | 2024年 / 69卷 / 04期
关键词
proton therapy; monte carlo; beam modelling; commissioning; DOSE-CALCULATION; NUCLEAR HALO; SIMULATION; PLATFORM; PERFORMANCE; CHALLENGES; GATE; CODE;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6560/ad1272
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Objective. To demonstrate the potential of Monte Carlo (MC) to support the resource-intensive measurements that comprise the commissioning of the treatment planning system (TPS) of new proton therapy facilities. Approach. Beam models of a pencil beam scanning system (Varian ProBeam) were developed in GATE (v8.2), Eclipse proton convolution superposition algorithm (v16.1, Varian Medical Systems) and RayStation MC (v12.0.100.0, RaySearch Laboratories), using the beam commissioning data. All models were first benchmarked against the same commissioning data and validated on seven spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) plans. Then, we explored the use of MC to optimise dose calculation parameters, fully understand the performance and limitations of TPS in homogeneous fields and support the development of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) processes. We compared the dose calculations of the TPSs against measurements (DDTPSvs.Meas.) or GATE (DDTPSvs.GATE) for an extensive set of plans of varying complexity. This included homogeneous plans with varying field-size, range, width, and range-shifters (RSs) (n = 46) and PSQA plans for different anatomical sites (n = 11). Main results. The three beam models showed good agreement against the commissioning data, and dose differences of 3.5% and 5% were found for SOBP plans without and with RSs, respectively. DDTPSvs.Meas. and DDTPSvs.GATE were correlated in most scenarios. In homogeneous fields the Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.92 and 0.68 for Eclipse and RayStation, respectively. The standard deviation of the differences between GATE and measurements (+/- 0.5% for homogeneous and +/- 0.8% for PSQA plans) was applied as tolerance when comparing TPSs with GATE. 72% and 60% of the plans were within the GATE predicted dose difference for both TPSs, for homogeneous and PSQA cases, respectively. Significance. Developing and validating a MC beam model early on into the commissioning of new proton therapy facilities can support the validation of the TPS and facilitate comprehensive investigation of its capabilities and limitations.
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] An automated beam commissioning procedure for Monte Carlo treatment planning
    Qin, L
    Li, J
    Jiang, S
    Deng, J
    Ma, C
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (06) : 1232 - 1232
  • [32] Electron beam modeling and commissioning for Monte Carlo treatment planning
    Jiang, SB
    Kapur, A
    Ma, CM
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2000, 27 (01) : 180 - 191
  • [33] Verification of a proton treatment-planning pencil-beam dose algorithm with Monte Carlo
    Titt, U.
    Zheng, Y.
    Zhu, X.
    Mohan, R.
    Newhauser, W.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2149 - 2149
  • [34] GATE as a GEANT4-based Monte Carlo platform for the evaluation of proton pencil beam scanning treatment plans
    Grevillot, L.
    Bertrand, D.
    Dessy, F.
    Freud, N.
    Sarrut, D.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2012, 57 (13): : 4223 - 4244
  • [35] Commissioning the beam model of apertures in a compact proton system using pencil beam scanning
    Perez Moreno, J. M.
    Vera Sanchez, J. A.
    Cerron Campoo, F.
    Castro Novais, J.
    Canals de las Casas, E.
    Lorenzo Villanueva, I.
    Sallabanda Hajro, M.
    Montero Feijoo, M.
    de Pablo Gonzalez, A.
    Matute Martin, R.
    Miralbell, R.
    Mazal, A.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2023, 182 : S1750 - S1751
  • [36] Commissioning a Fixed Field FLASH Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy System in Support of the First In-Human Clinical Trial
    Mascia, A.
    Zhang, Y.
    Lee, E.
    Xiao, Z.
    Speth, J.
    Sertorio, M.
    Abel, E.
    Folkerts, M.
    Lourenco, A.
    Lee, N.
    Subiel, A.
    Romano, F.
    Thomas, R.
    Amos, R.
    Breneman, J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (06)
  • [37] Development and validation of the Dynamic Collimation Monte Carlo simulation package for pencil beam scanning proton therapy
    Nelson, Nicholas P.
    Culberson, Wesley S.
    Hyer, Daniel E.
    Geoghegan, Theodore J.
    Patwardhan, Kaustubh A.
    Smith, Blake R.
    Flynn, Ryan T.
    Yu, Jen
    Rana, Suresh
    Gutierrez, Alonso N.
    Hill, Patrick M.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (06) : 3172 - 3185
  • [38] Beam Characteristics and Treatment Planning Commissioning for a New Proton Therapy Unit
    Zhao, T.
    Sun, B.
    Grantham, K.
    Santanam, L.
    Goddu, S.
    Klein, E.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (06) : 359 - 359
  • [39] Validation of a GPU-Accelerated Monte Carlo Treatment Planning System for Proton Beam Therapy
    Rucinski, A.
    Battistoni, G.
    Gora, E.
    Durante, M.
    Gajewski, J.
    Garbacz, M.
    Kisielewicz, K.
    Krah, N.
    Patera, V.
    Rinaldi, I.
    Sas-Korczynska, B.
    Skora, T.
    Skrzypek, A.
    Tommasino, F.
    Scifoni, E.
    Schiavi, A.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) : E261 - E261
  • [40] Evaluation of Shielding and Activation at Two Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Facilities
    Remmes, N.
    Mundy, D.
    Stoker, J.
    Classic, K.
    Nelson, K.
    Beltran, C.
    Bues, M.
    Kruse, J.
    Herman, M.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3425 - 3426