Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Yepes, P. ♦ Titt, U. ♦ Mirkovic, D. ♦ Liu, A. ♦ Frank, S. ♦ Mohan, R.
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES ♦ RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ♦ ALGORITHMS ♦ CALCULATORS ♦ EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ♦ EVALUATION ♦ MONTE CARLO METHOD ♦ PATIENTS ♦ PROTON BEAMS ♦ RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS ♦ RADIOTHERAPY
Abstract Purpose: Evaluate the differences in dose distributions between the proton analytic semi-empirical dose calculation algorithm used in the clinic and Monte Carlo calculations for a sample of 50 head-and-neck (H&N) patients and estimate the potential clinical significance of the differences. Methods: A cohort of 50 H&N patients, treated at the University of Texas Cancer Center with Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT), were selected for evaluation of clinical significance of approximations in computed dose distributions. H&N site was selected because of the highly inhomogeneous nature of the anatomy. The Fast Dose Calculator (FDC), a fast track-repeating accelerated Monte Carlo algorithm for proton therapy, was utilized for the calculation of dose distributions delivered during treatment plans. Because of its short processing time, FDC allows for the processing of large cohorts of patients. FDC has been validated versus GEANT4, a full Monte Carlo system and measurements in water and for inhomogeneous phantoms. A gamma-index analysis, DVHs, EUDs, and TCP and NTCPs computed using published models were utilized to evaluate the differences between the Treatment Plan System (TPS) and FDC. Results: The Monte Carlo results systematically predict lower dose delivered in the target. The observed differences can be as large as 8 Gy, and should have a clinical impact. Gamma analysis also showed significant differences between both approaches, especially for the target volumes. Conclusion: Monte Carlo calculations with fast algorithms is practical and should be considered for the clinic, at least as a treatment plan verification tool.
ISSN 00942405
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2016-06-15
Publisher Place United States
Journal Medical Physics
Volume Number 43
Issue Number 6


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab