A comparison of two pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems for proton therapy

被引:17
|
作者
Langner, Ulrich W. [1 ]
Mundis, Michelle [1 ]
Strauss, Dan [1 ]
Zhu, Mingyao [1 ]
Mossahebi, Sina [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Maryland Proton Treatment Ctr, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
来源
关键词
Monte Carlo methods; treatment planning; LOW-DOSE ENVELOPE; DELIVERY-SYSTEM; CANCER; MODEL;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.12235
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: Analytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses. Method: The TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty-five typical plans were made with each planning system, 31 without range shifter and four with a 5 cm range shifter. Point doses in these planes were compared to measured doses. Results: The mean percentage difference for all plans between Raystation and Eclipse were 1.51 +/- 1.99%. The mean percentage difference for all plans between TPS models and measured values are -2.06 +/- 1.48% for Raystation pencil beam (PB), -0.59 +/- 1.71% for Eclipse and -1.69 +/- 1.11% for Raystation monte carlo (MC). The distribution for the patient plans were similar for Eclipse and Raystation MC with a P-value of 0.59 for a two tailed unpaired t-test and significantly different from the Raystation PB model with P = 0.0013 between Raystation MC and PB. All three models faired markedly better if plans with a 5 cm range shifter were ignored. Plan comparisons with a 5 cm range shifter give differences between Raystation and Eclipse of 3.77 +/- 1.82%. The mean percentage difference for 5 cm range shifter plans between TPS models and measured values are -3.89 +/- 2.79% for Raystation PB, -0.25 +/- 3.85% for Eclipse and 1.55 +/- 1.95% for Raystation MC. Conclusion: Both Eclipse and Raystation PB TPS are not always accurate within +/- 3% for a 5 cm range shifters or for small targets. This was improved with the Raystation MC model. The point dose calculations of Eclipse, Raystation PB, and Raystation MC compare within +/- 3% to measured doses for the other scenarios tested.
引用
收藏
页码:156 / 163
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Beam Data for Two Varian ProBeam Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Systems
    Langner, U.
    Langen, K.
    Eley, J.
    Zhu, M.
    Yu, J.
    Chung, H.
    Polf, J.
    Dong, L.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (06) : 3499 - 3499
  • [2] Treatment Planning of Bulky Tumors Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton GRID Therapy
    Halthore, Aditya
    Fellows, Zachary
    Tran, Anh
    Deville, Curtiland, Jr.
    Wright, Jean L.
    Meyer, Jeffrey
    Li, Heng
    Sheikh, Khadija
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PARTICLE THERAPY, 2023, 9 (03) : 40 - 49
  • [3] Robust Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Treatment Planning for Rectal Cancer Radiation Therapy
    Kiely, Janid Patricia Blanco
    White, Benjamin M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2016, 95 (01): : 208 - 215
  • [4] Treatment Planning of Bulky Tumors Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton GRID Therapy
    Halthore, Aditya
    Fellows, Zachary
    Tran, Anh
    Deville Jr, Curtiland
    Wright, Jean L.
    Meyer, Jeffrey
    Li, Heng
    Sheikh, Khadija
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PARTICLE THERAPY, 2022,
  • [5] A Golden Beam Data Commissioning Framework of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Algorithms of Two Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Treatment Planning Systems
    Chang, C.
    Harms, J.
    Zhang, R.
    Zhou, J.
    Lin, Y.
    Slopsema, R.
    Dhabaan, A.
    Liu, T.
    McDonald, M.
    Langen, K.
    Lin, L.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E167 - E167
  • [6] Pseudo Proton Radiography Beam Validation of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation in Two Pencil Beam Scanning Treatment Planning Systems
    Chang, C.
    Zhou, J.
    Yang, X.
    Dhabaan, A.
    Zhang, R.
    Liu, T.
    McDonald, M.
    Langen, K.
    Lin, L.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E592 - E592
  • [7] Adaptive Planning Workflow in a Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Center
    Blakey, M.
    Price, S.
    Robison, B.
    Niek, S.
    Moe, S.
    Renegar, J.
    Mark, A.
    Spenser, W.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3282 - 3282
  • [8] Pencil beam scanning proton therapy vs rotational arc radiation therapy: A treatment planning comparison for postoperative oropharyngeal cancer
    Apinorasethkul, Ontida
    Kirk, Maura
    Teo, Kevin
    Swisher-McClure, Samuel
    Lukens, John N.
    Lin, Alexander
    [J]. MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2017, 42 (01) : 7 - 11
  • [9] Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer
    Dionisi, F.
    Batra, S.
    Kirk, M.
    Both, S.
    Vennarini, S.
    McDonough, J.
    Metz, J. M.
    Plastaras, J. P.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2013, 87 (02): : S341 - S342
  • [10] Validation of automated complex head and neck treatment planning with pencil beam scanning proton therapy
    Hedrick, Samantha Grace
    Petro, Scott
    Ward, Alex
    Morris, Bart
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 23 (02):