Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy
Abstract Objective To determine the effect of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer (LET) optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy, and to determine whether adding more beams would improve the plan robustness to different dose calculation engines. Methods Two sets of...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Precision Radiation Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/pro6.1179 |
| _version_ | 1797858350405255168 |
|---|---|
| author | Mei Chen Wenhua Cao Pablo Yepes Fada Guan Falk Poenisch Cheng Xu Jiayi Chen Yupeng Li Ivan Vazquez Ming Yang X. Ronald Zhu Xiaodong Zhang |
| author_facet | Mei Chen Wenhua Cao Pablo Yepes Fada Guan Falk Poenisch Cheng Xu Jiayi Chen Yupeng Li Ivan Vazquez Ming Yang X. Ronald Zhu Xiaodong Zhang |
| author_sort | Mei Chen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objective To determine the effect of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer (LET) optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy, and to determine whether adding more beams would improve the plan robustness to different dose calculation engines. Methods Two sets of intensity‐modulated proton therapy plans using two, four, six, and nine beams were created for 10 prostate cancer patients: one set was optimized with dose constraints (DoseOpt) using the pencil beam (PB) algorithm, and the other set was optimized with additional LET constraints (LETOpt) using the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. Dose distributions of DoseOpt plans were then recalculated using the MC algorithm, and the LETOpt plans were recalculated using the PB algorithm. Dosimetric indices of targets and critical organs were compared between the PB and MC algorithms for both sets of plans. Results For DoseOpt plans, dose differences between the PB and MC algorithms were minimal. However, the maximum dose differences in LETOpt plans were 11.11% and 15.85% in the dose covering 98% and 2% (D2) of the clinical target volume, respectively. Furthermore, the dose to 1 cc of the bladder differed by 11.42 Gy (relative biological effectiveness). Adding more beams reduced the discrepancy in target coverage, but the errors in D2 of the structure were increased with the number of beams. Conclusion High modulation of LET requires high dose calculation accuracy during the optimization and final dose calculation in the inverse treatment planning for intensity‐modulated proton therapy, and adding more beams did not improve the plan robustness to different dose calculation algorithms. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T21:12:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6ca031009b0d42e1aa7bac54063a9424 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2398-7324 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T21:12:01Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Precision Radiation Oncology |
| spelling | doaj.art-6ca031009b0d42e1aa7bac54063a94242023-03-28T14:57:03ZengWileyPrecision Radiation Oncology2398-73242023-03-0171364410.1002/pro6.1179Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapyMei Chen0Wenhua Cao1Pablo Yepes2Fada Guan3Falk Poenisch4Cheng Xu5Jiayi Chen6Yupeng Li7Ivan Vazquez8Ming Yang9X. Ronald Zhu10Xiaodong Zhang11Department of Radiation Oncology Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai ChinaDepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Oncology Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai ChinaDepartment of Radiation Oncology Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai ChinaDepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USADepartment of Radiation Physics The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USAAbstract Objective To determine the effect of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer (LET) optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy, and to determine whether adding more beams would improve the plan robustness to different dose calculation engines. Methods Two sets of intensity‐modulated proton therapy plans using two, four, six, and nine beams were created for 10 prostate cancer patients: one set was optimized with dose constraints (DoseOpt) using the pencil beam (PB) algorithm, and the other set was optimized with additional LET constraints (LETOpt) using the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. Dose distributions of DoseOpt plans were then recalculated using the MC algorithm, and the LETOpt plans were recalculated using the PB algorithm. Dosimetric indices of targets and critical organs were compared between the PB and MC algorithms for both sets of plans. Results For DoseOpt plans, dose differences between the PB and MC algorithms were minimal. However, the maximum dose differences in LETOpt plans were 11.11% and 15.85% in the dose covering 98% and 2% (D2) of the clinical target volume, respectively. Furthermore, the dose to 1 cc of the bladder differed by 11.42 Gy (relative biological effectiveness). Adding more beams reduced the discrepancy in target coverage, but the errors in D2 of the structure were increased with the number of beams. Conclusion High modulation of LET requires high dose calculation accuracy during the optimization and final dose calculation in the inverse treatment planning for intensity‐modulated proton therapy, and adding more beams did not improve the plan robustness to different dose calculation algorithms.https://doi.org/10.1002/pro6.1179dose calculation accuracyintensity‐modulated proton therapyinverse optimizationlinear energy transfer |
| spellingShingle | Mei Chen Wenhua Cao Pablo Yepes Fada Guan Falk Poenisch Cheng Xu Jiayi Chen Yupeng Li Ivan Vazquez Ming Yang X. Ronald Zhu Xiaodong Zhang Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy Precision Radiation Oncology dose calculation accuracy intensity‐modulated proton therapy inverse optimization linear energy transfer |
| title | Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy |
| title_full | Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy |
| title_fullStr | Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy |
| title_full_unstemmed | Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy |
| title_short | Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy |
| title_sort | impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity modulated proton therapy |
| topic | dose calculation accuracy intensity‐modulated proton therapy inverse optimization linear energy transfer |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/pro6.1179 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT meichen impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT wenhuacao impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT pabloyepes impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT fadaguan impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT falkpoenisch impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT chengxu impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT jiayichen impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT yupengli impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT ivanvazquez impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT mingyang impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT xronaldzhu impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy AT xiaodongzhang impactofdosecalculationaccuracyoninverselinearenergytransferoptimizationforintensitymodulatedprotontherapy |