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
  • [21] REDUCING DOSE TO DENTOFACIAL STRUCTURES: A PENCIL-BEAM SCANNING PROTON THERAPY AND VOLUMETRIC-ARC THERAPY PHOTON TREATMENT PLANNING COMPARISON STUDY
    Davies, Lucy Siew Chen
    Charlwood, Frances
    Hol, Marinka
    Aznar, Marianne C.
    Davey, Angela
    Eccles, Cynthia
    Foster-Thomas, Emma
    Gaito, Simona
    Gaze, Mark
    Indelicato, Danny
    Mandeville, Henry
    Slater, Olga
    Sitch, Peter
    Tang, Vivian
    Whitfield, Gillian
    Pan, Shermaine
    [J]. PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2023, 70 : S68 - S69
  • [22] Pencil-beam scanning proton therapy for the treatment of glomus jugulare tumours
    Kubes, Jiri
    Vondracek, Vladimir
    Andrlik, Michal
    Navratil, Matej
    Slavikova, Silvia
    Klika, Daniel
    Haas, Alexandra
    Dedeckova, Katerina
    Kopeckova, Katerina
    Ondrova, Barbora
    Rotnaglova, Eliska
    Vinakurau, Stepan
    Grebenyuk, Alexander
    Rosina, Jozef
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RADIATION SCIENCES, 2022, 69 (04) : 456 - 462
  • [23] Evaluation of a Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Dose Model for a Commercial Treatment Planning System
    Patel, D.
    Poenisch, F.
    Sahoo, N.
    Zhu, X.
    Gillin, M.
    Janson, M.
    Mohan, R.
    Titt, U.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) : E261 - E261
  • [24] A Robust Treatment Planning Technique for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Cranial Spinal Irradiation
    Zhu, M.
    Yam, M.
    Mehta, M.
    Badiyan, S.
    Young, K.
    Malyapa, R.
    Regine, W.
    Langen, K.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (06) : 3505 - 3505
  • [25] A beam angle optimization technique for proton pencil beam scanning treatment planning of lower pelvis targets
    Kiely, J. Blanco
    White, B. M.
    Both, S.
    [J]. WORLD CONGRESS ON MEDICAL PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2015, 51 : 479 - 482
  • [26] A comparison of the dose distributions from three proton treatment planning systems in the planning of meningioma patients with single-field uniform dose pencil beam scanning
    Doolan, Paul J.
    Alshaikhi, Jailan
    Rosenberg, Ivan
    Ainsley, Christopher G.
    Gibson, Adam
    D'Souza, Derek
    Bentefour, El Hassane
    Royle, Gary
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (01): : 86 - 99
  • [27] Dosimetric comparison of VMAT and pencil beam scanning proton therapy for abdominal pediatric tumors
    Guerreiro, F.
    Seravalli, E.
    Janssens, G. O.
    Maduro, J. H.
    Brouwer, C. L.
    Korevaar, E. W.
    Knopf, A. C.
    Raaymakers, B. W.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 127 : S885 - S886
  • [28] Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for treatment of the retroperitoneum after nephrectomy for Wilms tumor: A dosimetric comparison study
    Vogel, Jennifer
    Lin, Haibo
    Both, Stefan
    Tochner, Zelig
    Balis, Frank
    Hill-Kayser, Christine
    [J]. PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2017, 64 (01) : 39 - 45
  • [29] Evaluation of monte carlo to support commissioning of the treatment planning system of new pencil beam scanning proton therapy facilities
    Botnariuc, D.
    Court, S.
    Lourenco, A.
    Gosling, A.
    Royle, G.
    Hussein, M.
    Rompokos, V
    Veiga, C.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2024, 69 (04):
  • [30] Feasibility of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Treatment Planning with a Dynamic Collimation System in an FDA-Cleared TPS
    Bennett, L.
    Smith, B.
    Flynn, R.
    Hyer, D.
    Wang, D.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E101 - E101