Proton range verification in inhomogeneous tissue: Treatment planning system vs. measurement vs. Monte Carlo simulation

被引:14
|
作者
Kim, Dae-Hyun [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Cho, Sungkoo [1 ]
Jo, Kwanghyun [1 ]
Shin, EunHyuk [1 ]
Hong, Chae-Seon [1 ]
Han, Youngyih [1 ]
Suh, Tae-Suk [2 ,3 ]
Lim, Do Hoon [1 ]
Choi, Doo Ho [1 ]
机构
[1] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Sch Med, Samsung Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Catholic Univ Korea, Dept Biomed Engn, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Catholic Univ Korea, Res Inst Biomed Engn, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
来源
PLOS ONE | 2018年 / 13卷 / 03期
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
PENCIL BEAM ALGORITHM; RADIATION-THERAPY; DOSE CALCULATION; STOPPING POWER; BRAGG PEAK; UNCERTAINTIES; GEANT4; NOZZLE;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0193904
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
In particle radiotherapy, range uncertainty is an important issue that needs to be overcome. Because high-dose conformality can be achieved using a particle beam, a small uncertainty can affect tumor control or cause normal-tissue complications. From this perspective, the treatment planning system (TPS) must be accurate. However, there is a well-known inaccuracy regarding dose computation in heterogeneous media. This means that verifying the uncertainty level is one of the prerequisites for TPS commissioning. We evaluated the range accuracy of the dose computation algorithm implemented in a commercial TPS, and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation against measurement using a CT calibration phantom. A treatment plan was produced for eight different materials plugged into a phantom, and two-dimensional doses were measured using a chamber array. The measurement setup and beam delivery were simulated by MC code. For an infinite solid water phantom, the gamma passing rate between the measurement and TPS was 97.7%, and that between the measurement and MC was 96.5%. However, gamma passing rates between the measurement and TPS were 49.4% for the lung and 67.8% for bone, and between the measurement and MC were 85.6% for the lung and 100.0% for bone tissue. For adipose, breast, brain, liver, and bone mineral, the gamma passing rates computed by TPS were 91.7%, 90.6%, 81.7%, 85.6%, and 85.6%, respectively. The gamma passing rates for MC for adipose, breast, brain, liver, and bone mineral were 100.0%, 97.2%, 95.0%, 98.9%, and 97.8%, respectively. In conclusion, the described procedure successfully evaluated the allowable range uncertainty for TPS commissioning. The TPS dose calculation is inefficient in heterogeneous media with large differences in density, such as lung or bone tissue. Therefore, the limitations of TPS in heterogeneous media should be understood and applied in clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Tissue Inhomogeneities in Monte Carlo Treatment Planning for Proton Therapy
    Beaulieu, L.
    Bazalova, M.
    Furstoss, C.
    Verhaegen, F.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (06) : 2616 - +
  • [32] Monte Carlo vs. Pencil Beam based optimization of stereotactic lung IMRT
    Sikora, Marcin
    Muzik, Jan
    Soehn, Matthias
    Weinmann, Martin
    Alber, Markus
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2009, 4
  • [33] Pulsed Depositions vs. Continuous Growth: Monte Carlo Study of Submonolayer Regime
    Masin, Martin
    Kotrla, Miroslav
    E-JOURNAL OF SURFACE SCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY, 2010, 8 : 65 - 68
  • [34] Electrical Conductivity Measurement in Human Liver Tissue: Assessment on Normal vs. Tumor Tissue and under In Vivo vs. Ex Vivo Conditions
    Sarreshtehdari, Amirhossein
    Garcia-Sanchez, Tomas
    Sanchez-Velazquez, Patricia
    Ielpo, Benedetto
    Berjano, Enrique
    Villamonte, Maria
    Moll, Xavier
    Burdio, Fernando
    BIOSENSORS-BASEL, 2024, 14 (08):
  • [35] Monte Carlo vs. Pencil Beam based optimization of stereotactic lung IMRT
    Marcin Sikora
    Jan Muzik
    Matthias Söhn
    Martin Weinmann
    Markus Alber
    Radiation Oncology, 4
  • [36] Surface Dose Investigation for Open and Wedge Fields: Measurements vs. Monte Carlo
    Kim, J.
    Hill, R.
    Kuncic, Z.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06)
  • [37] Reactive Transport Parameter Estimation: Genetic Algorithm vs. Monte Carlo Approach
    Majdalani, Samer
    Fahs, Marwan
    Carrayrou, Jerome
    Ackerer, Philippe
    AICHE JOURNAL, 2009, 55 (08) : 1959 - 1968
  • [38] BED Vs. Local Control: Radiobiological Effect of Tumor Volume in Monte Carlo (MC) Lung SBRT Planning
    Pokhrel, D.
    Badkul, R.
    Jiang, H.
    Estes, C.
    Park, J.
    Kumar, P.
    Wang, F.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (06) : 94 - 94
  • [39] Dosimetric verification of a Monte Carlo treatment planning system for MR-guided proton therapy
    Fuchs, H.
    Padilla-Cabal, F.
    Oborn, B.
    Traneus, E.
    Georg, D.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2023, 182 : S1544 - S1545
  • [40] Cost analysis of endoscopic antireflux procedures: endoluminal plication vs. radiofrequency coagulation vs. treatment with a proton pump inhibitor
    Harewood, GC
    Gostout, CJ
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2003, 58 (04) : 493 - 499