AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Article Link
Collect
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Original Article | Open Access

Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy

Mei Chen1,2Wenhua Cao2Pablo Yepes2,3Fada Guan2Falk Poenisch2Cheng Xu1Jiayi Chen1Yupeng Li2Ivan Vazquez2Ming Yang2X. Ronald Zhu2Xiaodong Zhang2( )
Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Physics and Astronomy Department, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA
Show Author Information

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.

References

1
ICRU. Prescrbing, recording, and reporting proton-beam therapy. JICRU. 2007;7(2)doi: 10.1093/jicru/ndm021
2

Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(22):R419-R472. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/R419

3

Chaudhary P, Marshall TI, Perozziello FM, et al. Relative biological effectiveness variation along monoenergetic and modulated bragg peaks of a 62-MeV therapeutic proton beam: a preclinical assessment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(1):27-35.

4

Guan FD, Bronk L, Titt U, et al. Spatial mapping of the biologic effectiveness of scanned particle beams: towards biologically optimized particle therapy. Sci Rep. 2015;5: 9850. doi:10.1038/srep09850

5

Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Craft D, Niemierko A, Trofimov A, Paganetti H. Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: feasibility study and clinical potential. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(1):216-222.

6

Grassberger C, Trofimov A, Lomax A, Paganetti H. Variations in linear energy transfer within clinical proton therapy fields and the potential for biological treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(5):1559-1566.

7

Unkelbach J, Botas P, Giantsoudi D, Gorissen BL, Paganetti H. Reoptimization of intensity modulated proton therapy plans based on linear energy transfer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96(5):1097-1106.

8

An Y, Shan J, Patel SH, et al. Robust intensity-modulated proton therapy to reduce high linear energy transfer in organs at risk. Med Phys. 2017;44(12):6138-6147.

9

Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Noda K, Kamada T. Treatment planning of intensity modulated composite particle therapy with dose and linear energy transfer optimization. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(12):5180-5197.

10

Cao WH, Khabazian A, Yepes PP, et al. Linear energy transfer incorporated intensity modulated proton therapy optimization. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(1):015013. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aa9a2e

11

Traneus E, Oden J. Introducing proton track-end objectives in intensity modulated proton therapy optimization to reduce linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness in critical structures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(3):747-757.

12

Cortes-Giraldo MA, Carabe A. A critical study of different Monte Carlo scoring methods of dose average linear-energy-transfer maps calculated in voxelized geometries irradiated with clinical proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(7):2645-2669.

13

Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. Analytical linear energy transfer calculations for proton therapy. Med Phys. 2003;30(5):806-815.

14

Marsolat F, De Marzi L, Pouzoulet F, Mazal A. Analytical linear energy transfer model including secondary particles: calculations along the central axis of the proton pencil beam. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(2):740-757.

15

Sanchez-Parcerisa D, Cortes-Giraldo MA, Dolney D, Kondrla M, Fager M, Carabe A. Analytical calculation of proton linear energy transfer in voxelized geometries including secondary protons. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(4):1705-1721.

16

Guan F, Peeler C, Bronk L, et al. Analysis of the track- and dose-averaged LET and LET spectra in proton therapy using the geant4 Monte Carlo code. Med Phys. 2015;42(11):6234-6247.

17

Grassberger C, Paganetti H. Elevated LET components in clinical proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(20):6677-6691.

18

Kramer M, Jakel O. Biological dose optimization using ramp-like dose gradients in ion irradiation fields. Phys Medica. 2005;21(3):107-111.

19

Bassler N, Toftegaard J, Luhr A, et al. LET-painting increases tumour control probability in hypoxic tumours. Acta Oncol. 2014;53(1):25-32.

20

Malinen E, Sovik A. Dose or 'LET' painting - what is optimal in particle therapy of hypoxic tumors? Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1614-1622.

21

Fager M, Toma-Dasu I, Kirk M, et al. Linear energy transfer painting with proton therapy: a means of reducing radiation doses with equivalent clinical effectiveness. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(5):1057-1064.

22

Ma D, Bronk L, Kerr M, et al. Exploring the advantages of intensity-modulated proton therapy: experimental validation of biological effects using two different beam intensity-modulation patterns. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):3199. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60246-5

23

Saini J, Maes D, Egan A, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning Monte-Carlo dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(19):7659-7681.

24

Widesott L, Lorentini S, Fracchiolla F, Farace P, Schwarz M. Improvements in pencil beam scanning proton therapy dose calculation accuracy in brain tumor cases with a commercial Monte Carlo algorithm. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(14):145016. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aac279

25

Yepes P, Adair A, Grosshans D, et al. Comparison of Monte Carlo and analytical dose computations for intensity modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(4). doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aaa845

26

Winterhalter C, Zepter S, Shim S, et al. Evaluation of the ray-casting analytical algorithm for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(6):065021. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aafe58

27
LET-IMPT and standard chemotherapy in treating patients with newlydiagnosed stage I-III anal canal squamous cell cancer. Updated October 1, 2018. Accessed September 2, 2019, https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT03690921
28
LET optimized IMPT in treating pediatric patients with ependymoma.Updated November 22, 2018. Accessed September 2, 2019, https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT03750513
29

Zhu XR, Poenisch F, Lii M, et al. Commissioning dose computation models for spot scanning proton beams in water for a commercially available treatment planning system. Med Phys. 2013;40: 041723. doi:10.1118/1.4798229

30

Yepes P, Randeniya S, Taddei PJ, Newhauser WD. A track-repeating algorithm for fast Monte Carlo dose calculations of proton radiotherapy. Nucl Technol. 2009;168(3):736-740.

31

Yepes P, Mirkovic D, Taddei PJ. A GPU implementation of a track-repeating algorithm for proton radiotherapy dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(23):7107-7120.

32

Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, et al. Geant4 developments and applications. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2006;53(1):270-278.

33

Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K, et al. Geant4—a simulation toolkit. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. 2003;506(3):250-303.

34

Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, et al. Recent developments in Geant4. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. 2016;835(Supplement C):186-225.

35

Yepes PP, Eley JG, Liu A, et al. Validation of a track repeating algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy: clinical cases study. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(7):2633-2645.

36

Yepes PP, Guan F, Kerr M, et al. Validation of a track-repeating algorithm versus measurements in water for proton scanning beams. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2016;2(3). doi:10.1088/2057-1976/2/3/037002

37

Li YP, Niemela P, Liao L, et al. Selective robust optimization: a new intensity-modulated proton therapy optimization strategy. Med Phys. 2015;42(8):4840-4847.

38

Burman C, Kutcher GJ, Emami B. Goitein M. Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic-function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):123-135.

39

Wu QW, Mohan R, Niemierko A, Schmidt-Ullrich R. Optimization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans based on the equivalent uniform dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52(1):224-235.

40
Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Breakthroughsin statistics. Springer; 1992: 196-202.
41

Cao WH, Lim GJ, Li YP, Zhu XR, Zhang XD. Improved beam angle arrangement in intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning for localized prostate cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2015;7(2):574-584.

42

Saini J, Traneus E, Maes D, et al. Advanced proton beam dosimetry part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7(2):171-179.

43
Varian. Eclipse Proton Algorithms 13.7 MR2 Reference Guide. 2017;
44

Bai XM, Lim G, Grosshans D, Mohan R, Cao WH. Robust optimization to reduce the impact of biological effect variation from physical uncertainties in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(2). ARTN/025004/ https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aaf5e9

45

Jeraj R, Keall PJ, Siebers JV. The effect of dose calculation accuracy on inverse treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47(3):391-407.

46

Jeraj R, Keall P. The effect of statistical uncertainty on inverse treatment planning based on Monte Carlo dose calculation. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45(12):3601-3613.

47

Keall PJ, Siebers JV, Jeraj R, Mohan R. The effect of dose calculation uncertainty on the evaluation of radiotherapy plans. Med Phys. 2000;27(3):478-484.

Precision Radiation Oncology
Pages 36-44
Cite this article:
Chen M, Cao W, Yepes P, et al. Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy. Precision Radiation Oncology, 2023, 7(1): 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro6.1179

390

Views

3

Crossref

3

Scopus

Altmetrics

Received: 17 September 2022
Revised: 17 October 2022
Accepted: 19 October 2022
Published: 08 December 2022
© 2022 The Authors. Precision Radiation Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Shandong Cancer Hospital & Institute.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Return