Highlights
- •The PB plans that passed the Gamma testing did not yield smaller dose errors compared to the plans that failed the Gamma testing.
- •The MU scaling technique leads to an overall smaller dose error.
- •MU scaling, however, for some DVH evaluation point, worsened some cases.
Abstract
Purpose
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Keywords
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical PhysicsReferences
- Proton therapy for breast cancer after mastectomy: early outcomes of a prospective clinical trial.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86: 484-490
- Early toxicity in patients treated with postoperative proton therapy for locally advanced breast cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 92: 284-291
- Initial report of a prospective dosimetric and clinical feasibility trial demonstrates the potential of protons to increase the therapeutic ratio in breast cancer compared with photons.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 95: 411-421
- Proton therapy for primary breast cancer.Breast Care (Basel). 2018; 13: 168-172
- Proton therapy for locally advanced breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature.Cancer Treat Rev. 2018; 63: 19-27
- Potential morbidity reduction with proton radiation therapy for breast cancer.Semin Radiat Oncol. 2018; 28: 138-149
- Proton therapy for local-regionally advanced breast cancer maximizes cardiac sparing.Int J Particle Ther. 2015; 1: 827-844
- Monte Carlo simulations will change the way we treat patients with proton beams today.Br J Radiol. 2014; 87 (20140293)
- Effect of inhomogeneity in a patient's body on the accuracy of the pencil beam algorithm in comparison to Monte Carlo.Phys Med Biol. 2012; 57: 7673-7688
- Pencil beam algorithms are unsuitable for proton dose calculations in lung.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 99: 750-756
- Dose comparison between proton pencil beam and monte carlo dose calculation algorithm in lung cancer patients.Int J Radiat Oncol • Biol • Phys. 2017; 99: E694
- Clinical Monte Carlo versus pencil beam treatment planning in nasopharyngeal patients receiving IMPT.Int J Part Ther. 2019; 5: 32-40
- A comprehensive dosimetric study of Monte Carlo and pencil-beam algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy for breast cancer.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20: 128-136
- Impact of dose engine algorithm in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for breast cancer.Phys Med. 2018; 50: 7-12
- Radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy breast cancer plans.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20: 36-46
- The impact of dose algorithms on tumor control probability in intensity-modulated proton therapy for breast cancer.Phys Med. 2019; 61: 52-57
- A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.Med Phys. 1998; 25: 656-661
- Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.Med Phys. 2011; 38: 1037-1044
- Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.Radiat Oncol. 2018; 13: 175
- Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram.Med Phys. 2012; 39: 7626-7634
- A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems.Radiother Oncol. 2013; 109: 370-376
Fredh A, Scherman JB, Fog LS, Munck af Rosenschold P. Patient QA systems for rotational radiation therapy: a comparative experimental study with intentional errors. Med Phys. 2013;40:031716.
- A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007; 8: 2448
- A survey of modulated radiotherapy use in Australia & New Zealand in 2015.Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2017; 40: 811-822
Schreuder AN, Bridges DS, Rigsby L, Blakey M, Janson M, Hedrick SG et al. Validation of the RayStation Monte Carlo Dose calculation algorithm using a realistic lung phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(12):127–137.
Schreuder AN, Bridges DS, Rigsby L, Blakey M, Janson M, Hedrick SG et al. Validation of the RayStation Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm using realistic animal tissue phantoms. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(10):160-171.
- Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning Monte-Carlo Dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations.Phys Med Biol. 2017; 62: 7659-7681
- Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA.Med Phys. 2011; 38: 5477-5489
- Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014; 90: 1195-1201
- Performance of a Hybrid Monte Carlo-pencil beam dose algorithm for proton therapy inverse planning.Med Phys. 2018; 45: 846-862
- A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations.Phys Med Biol. 1996; 41: 1305-1330
- Dose calculation models for proton treatment planning using a dynamic beam delivery system: an attempt to include density heterogeneity effects in the analytical dose calculation.Phys Med Biol. 1999; 44: 27-41
- Advanced proton beam dosimetry part I: Review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms.Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018; 7: 171-179
- Pencil beam algorithms are unsuitable for proton dose calculations in lung.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 99: 750-756