Dose Comparison between Proton Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Algorithm in Lung Cancer Patients

Treatment of ocular tumors through a novel applicator on a conventional proton pencil beam scanning beamline

Treatment of ocular tumors on dedicated scattering-based proton therapy systems is standard afforded due to sharp lateral and distal penumbras. However, most newer proton therapy centers provide pencil beam scanning treatments. In this paper, we present a pencil beam scanning (PBS)-based ocular treatment solution. The design, commissioning, and validation of an applicator mount for a conventional PBS snout to allow for ocular treatments are given. In contrast to scattering techniques, PBS-based ocular therapy allows for inverse planning, providing planners with additional flexibility to shape the radiation field, potentially sparing healthy tissues. PBS enables the use of commercial Monte Carlo algorithms resulting in accurate dose calculations in the presence of heterogeneities and fiducials. The validation consisted of small field dosimetry measurements of point doses, depth doses, and lateral profiles relevant to ocular therapy. A comparison of beam properties achieved through the applicator against published literature is presented. We successfully showed the feasibility of PBS-based ocular treatments.

Patient-specific quality assurance and plan dose errors on breast intensity-modulated proton therapy

PURPOSE

To investigate, in proton therapy, whether the Gamma passing rate (GPR) is related to the patient dose error and whether MU scaling can improve dose accuracy.

METHODS

Among 20 consecutively treated breast patients selected for analysis, two IMPT plans were retrospectively generated: (1) the pencil-beam (PB) plan and (2) the Monte Carlo (MC) plan. Patient-specific QA was performed. A 3%/3-mm Gamma analysis was conducted to compare the TPS-calculated PB algorithm dose distribution with the measured 2D dose. Dose errors were compared between the plans that passed the Gamma testing and those that failed. The MU was then scaled to obtain a better GPR. MU-scaled PB plan dose errors were compared to the original PB plan.

RESULTS

Of the 20 PB plans, 8 were passed Gamma testing (G_pass_group) and 12 failed (G_fail_group). Surprisingly, the G_pass_group had a greater dose error than the G_fail_group. The median (range) of the PTV DVH RMSE and PTV ΔDmean were 1.36 (1.00-1.91) Gy vs 1.18 (1.02-1.80) Gy and 1.23 (0.92-1.71) Gy vs 1.10 (0.87-1.49) Gy for the G_pass_group and the G_fail_group, respectively. MU scaling reduced overall dose error. However, for PTV D99 and D95, MU scaling worsened some cases.

CONCLUSION

For breast IMPT, the PB plans that passed the Gamma testing did not show smaller dose errors compared to the plans that failed. For individual plans, the MU scaling technique leads to overall smaller dose errors. However, we do not suggest use of the MU scaling technique to replace the MC plans when the MC algorithm is available.

Clinical Monte Carlo versus Pencil Beam Treatment Planning in Nasopharyngeal Patients Receiving IMPT

PURPOSE

Pencil beam (PB) analytical algorithms have been the standard of care for proton therapy dose calculations. The introduction of Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms may provide more robust and accurate planning and can improve therapeutic benefit. We conducted a dosimetric analysis to quantify the differences between MC and PB algorithms in the clinical setting of dose-painted nasopharyngeal cancer intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Plans of 14 patients treated with PB analytical algorithm optimized and calculated (PBPB) were retrospectively analyzed. The PBPB plans were recalculated using MC to generate PBMC plans and, finally, reoptimized and recalculated with MC to generate MCMC plans. The plans were compared across several dosimetric endpoints and correlated with documented toxicity. Robustness of the planning scenarios (PBPB, PBMC, MCMC) in the presence of setup and range uncertainties was compared.

RESULTS

A median decrease of up to 5 Gy (P < .05) was observed in coverage of planning target volume high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk volumes when PB plans were recalculated using the MC algorithm. This loss in coverage was regained by reoptimizing with MC, albeit with a slightly higher dose to normal tissues but within the standard tolerance limits. The robustness of both PB and MC plans remained similar in the presence of setup and range uncertainties. The MC-calculated mean dose to the oral avoidance structure, along with changes in global maximum dose between PB and MC dosimetry, may be associated with acute toxicity-related events.

CONCLUSION

Retrospective analyses of plan dosimetry quantified a loss of coverage with PB that could be recovered under MC optimization. MC optimization should be performed for the complex dosimetry in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma before plan acceptance and should also be used in correlative studies of proton dosimetry with clinical endpoints.