1
|
Duetschler A, Winterhalter C, Meier G, Safai S, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Zhang Y. A fast analytical dose calculation approach for MRI-guided proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:195020. [PMID: 37750045 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acf90d] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Accepted: 09/12/2023] [Indexed: 09/27/2023]
Abstract
Objective.Magnetic resonance (MR) is an innovative technology for online image guidance in conventional radiotherapy and is also starting to be considered for proton therapy as well. For MR-guided therapy, particularly for online plan adaptations, fast dose calculation is essential. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, however, which are considered the gold standard for proton dose calculations, are very time-consuming. To address the need for an efficient dose calculation approach for MRI-guided proton therapy, we have developed a fast GPU-based modification of an analytical dose calculation algorithm incorporating beam deflections caused by magnetic fields.Approach.Proton beams (70-229 MeV) in orthogonal magnetic fields (0.5/1.5 T) were simulated using TOPAS-MC and central beam trajectories were extracted to generate look-up tables (LUTs) of incremental rotation angles as a function of water-equivalent depth. Beam trajectories are then reconstructed using these LUTs for the modified ray casting dose calculation. The algorithm was validated against MC in water, different materials and for four example patient cases, whereby it has also been fully incorporated into a treatment plan optimisation regime.Main results.Excellent agreement between analytical and MC dose distributions could be observed with sub-millimetre range deviations and differences in lateral shifts <2 mm even for high densities (1000 HU). 2%/2 mm gamma pass rates were comparable to the 0 T scenario and above 94.5% apart for the lung case. Further, comparable treatment plan quality could be achieved regardless of magnetic field strength.Significance.A new method for accurate and fast proton dose calculation in magnetic fields has been developed and successfully implemented for treatment plan optimisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alisha Duetschler
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, CH, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, CH, Switzerland
| | - Carla Winterhalter
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, CH, Switzerland
| | - Gabriel Meier
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, CH, Switzerland
| | - Sairos Safai
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, CH, Switzerland
| | - Damien C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, CH, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zürich, 8091 Zürich, CH, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, CH, Switzerland
| | - Antony J Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, CH, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, CH, Switzerland
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232 Villigen PSI, CH, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yagi M, Tsubouchi T, Hamatani N, Takashina M, Maruo H, Fujitaka S, Nihongi H, Ogawa K, Kanai T. Commissioning a newly developed treatment planning system, VQA Plan, for fast-raster scanning of carbon-ion beams. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0268087. [PMID: 35536852 PMCID: PMC9089877 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 04/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
In this study, we report our experience in commissioning a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for fast-raster scanning of carbon-ion beams. This TPS uses an analytical dose calculation algorithm, a pencil-beam model with a triple Gaussian form for the lateral-dose distribution, and a beam splitting algorithm to consider lateral heterogeneity in a medium. We adopted the mixed beam model as the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for calculating the RBE values of the scanned carbon-ion beam. To validate the modeled physical dose, we compared the calculations with measurements of various relevant quantities as functions of the field size, range and width of the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP), and depth–dose and lateral-dose profiles for a 6-mm SOBP in water. To model the biological dose, we compared the RBE calculated with the newly developed TPS to the RBE calculated with a previously validated TPS that is in clinical use and uses the same RBE model concept. We also performed patient-specific measurements to validate the dose model in clinical situations. The physical beam model reproduces the measured absolute dose at the center of the SOBP as a function of field size, range, and SOBP width and reproduces the dose profiles for a 6-mm SOBP in water. However, the profiles calculated for a heterogeneous phantom have some limitations in predicting the carbon-ion-beam dose, although the biological doses agreed well with the values calculated by the validated TPS. Using this dose model for fast-raster scanning, we successfully treated more than 900 patients from October 2018 to October 2020, with an acceptable agreement between the TPS-calculated and measured dose distributions. We conclude that the newly developed TPS can be used clinically with the understanding that it has limited accuracies for heterogeneous media.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masashi Yagi
- Department of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita-city, Osaka, Japan
- Department of Medical Physics, Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center, Chuo-ku, Osaka-city, Osaka, Japan
- * E-mail:
| | - Toshiro Tsubouchi
- Department of Medical Physics, Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center, Chuo-ku, Osaka-city, Osaka, Japan
| | - Noriaki Hamatani
- Department of Medical Physics, Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center, Chuo-ku, Osaka-city, Osaka, Japan
| | - Masaaki Takashina
- Department of Medical Physics, Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center, Chuo-ku, Osaka-city, Osaka, Japan
| | - Hiroyasu Maruo
- Department of Radiation Technology, Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center, Chuo-ku, Osaka-city, Osaka, Japan
| | | | - Hideaki Nihongi
- Hitachi, Ltd. Smart Life Business Management Division/Healthcare Business Division, KOIL TERRACE 3F 226-44-141-1, Wakashiba, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba, Japan
| | - Kazuhiko Ogawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita-city, Osaka, Japan
| | - Tatsuaki Kanai
- Department of Medical Physics, Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center, Chuo-ku, Osaka-city, Osaka, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Paganetti H, Botas P, Sharp GC, Winey B. Adaptive proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:10.1088/1361-6560/ac344f. [PMID: 34710858 PMCID: PMC8628198 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac344f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2021] [Accepted: 10/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy treatments are typically planned based on a single image set, assuming that the patient's anatomy and its position relative to the delivery system remains constant during the course of treatment. Similarly, the prescription dose assumes constant biological dose-response over the treatment course. However, variations can and do occur on multiple time scales. For treatment sites with significant intra-fractional motion, geometric changes happen over seconds or minutes, while biological considerations change over days or weeks. At an intermediate timescale, geometric changes occur between daily treatment fractions. Adaptive radiation therapy is applied to consider changes in patient anatomy during the course of fractionated treatment delivery. While traditionally adaptation has been done off-line with replanning based on new CT images, online treatment adaptation based on on-board imaging has gained momentum in recent years due to advanced imaging techniques combined with treatment delivery systems. Adaptation is particularly important in proton therapy where small changes in patient anatomy can lead to significant dose perturbations due to the dose conformality and finite range of proton beams. This review summarizes the current state-of-the-art of on-line adaptive proton therapy and identifies areas requiring further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Physics Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Pablo Botas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Physics Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Foundation 29 of February, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Gregory C Sharp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Physics Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Brian Winey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Physics Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nenoff L, Matter M, Charmillot M, Krier S, Uher K, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Albertini F. Experimental validation of daily adaptive proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66. [PMID: 34587589 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac2b84] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2021] [Accepted: 09/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Anatomical changes during proton therapy require rapid treatment plan adaption to mitigate the associated dosimetric impact. This in turn requires a highly efficient workflow that minimizes the time between imaging and delivery. At the Paul Scherrer Institute, we have developed an online adaptive workflow, which is specifically designed for treatments in the skull-base/cranium, with the focus set on simplicity and minimizing changes to the conventional workflow. The dosimetric and timing performance of this daily adaptive proton therapy (DAPT) workflow has been experimentally investigated using an in-house developed DAPT software and specifically developed anthropomorphic phantom. After a standard treatment preparation, which includes the generation of a template plan, the treatment can then be adapted each day, based on daily imaging acquired on an in-room CT. The template structures are then rigidly propagated to this CT and the daily plan is fully re-optimized using the same field arrangement, DVH constraints and optimization settings of the template plan. After a dedicated plan QA, the daily plan is delivered. To minimize the time between imaging and delivery, clinically integrated software for efficient execution of all online adaption steps, as well as tools for comprehensive and automated QA checks, have been developed. Film measurements of an end-to-end validation of a multi-fraction DAPT treatment showed high agreement to the calculated doses. Gamma pass rates with a 3%/3 mm criteria were >92% when comparing the measured dose to the template plan. Additionally, a gamma pass rate >99% was found comparing measurements to the Monte Carlo dose of the daily plans reconstructed from the logfile, accumulated over the delivered fractions. With this, we experimentally demonstrate that the described adaptive workflow can be delivered accurately in a timescale similar to a standard delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Nenoff
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland.,Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Michael Matter
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland.,Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Serge Krier
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Klara Uher
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Damien Charles Weber
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland
| | - Antony John Lomax
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland.,Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Magro G, Mein S, Kopp B, Mastella E, Pella A, Ciocca M, Mairani A. FRoG dose computation meets Monte Carlo accuracy for proton therapy dose calculation in lung. Phys Med 2021; 86:66-74. [PMID: 34058719 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.05.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To benchmark and evaluate the clinical viability of novel analytical GPU-accelerated and CPU-based Monte Carlo (MC) dose-engines for spot-scanning intensity-modulated-proton-therapy (IMPT) towards the improvement of lung cancer treatment. METHODS Nine patient cases were collected from the CNAO clinical experience and The Cancer Imaging Archive-4D-Lung-Database for in-silico study. All plans were optimized with 2 orthogonal beams in RayStation (RS) v.8. Forward calculations were performed with FRoG, an independent dose calculation system using a fast robust approach to the pencil beam algorithm (PBA), RS-MC (CPU for v.8) and general-purpose MC (gp-MC). Dosimetric benchmarks were acquired via irradiation of a lung-like phantom and ionization chambers for both a single-field-uniform-dose (SFUD) and IMPT plans. Dose-volume-histograms, dose-difference and γ-analyses were conducted. RESULTS With respect to reference gp-MC, the average dose to the GTV was 1.8% and 2.3% larger for FRoG and the RS-MC treatment planning system (TPS). FRoG and RS-MC showed a local γ-passing rate of ~96% and ~93%. Phantom measurements confirmed FRoG's high accuracywith a deviation < 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS Dose calculation performance using the GPU-accelerated analytical PBA, MC-TPS and gp-MC code were well within clinical tolerances. FRoG predictions were in good agreement with both the full gp-MC and experimental data for proton beams optimized for thoracic dose calculations. GPU-accelerated dose-engines like FRoG may alleviate current issues related to deficiencies in current commercial analytical proton beam models. The novel approach to the PBA implemented in FRoG is suitable for either clinical TPS or as an auxiliary dose-engine to support clinical activity for lung patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giuseppe Magro
- National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Clinical Department, Pavia, Italy
| | - Stewart Mein
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Benedikt Kopp
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Germany
| | - Edoardo Mastella
- National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Clinical Department, Pavia, Italy
| | - Andrea Pella
- National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Clinical Department, Pavia, Italy
| | - Mario Ciocca
- National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Clinical Department, Pavia, Italy
| | - Andrea Mairani
- National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Clinical Department, Pavia, Italy; Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Nenoff L, Matter M, Amaya EJ, Josipovic M, Knopf AC, Lomax AJ, Persson GF, Ribeiro CO, Visser S, Walser M, Weber DC, Zhang Y, Albertini F. Dosimetric influence of deformable image registration uncertainties on propagated structures for online daily adaptive proton therapy of lung cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2021; 159:136-143. [PMID: 33771576 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.03.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2020] [Revised: 03/14/2021] [Accepted: 03/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE A major burden of introducing an online daily adaptive proton therapy (DAPT) workflow is the time and resources needed to correct the daily propagated contours. In this study, we evaluated the dosimetric impact of neglecting the online correction of the propagated contours in a DAPT workflow. MATERIAL AND METHODS For five NSCLC patients with nine repeated deep-inspiration breath-hold CTs, proton therapy plans were optimised on the planning CT to deliver 60 Gy-RBE in 30 fractions. All repeated CTs were registered with six different clinically used deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms to the corresponding planning CT. Structures were propagated rigidly and with each DIR algorithm and reference structures were contoured on each repeated CT. DAPT plans were optimised with the uncorrected, propagated structures (propagated DAPT doses) and on the reference structures (ideal DAPT doses), non-adapted doses were recalculated on all repeated CTs. RESULTS Due to anatomical changes occurring during the therapy, the clinical target volume (CTV) coverage of the non-adapted doses reduces on average by 9.7% (V95) compared to an ideal DAPT doses. For the propagated DAPT doses, the CTV coverage was always restored (average differences in the CTV V95 < 1% compared to the ideal DAPT doses). Hotspots were always reduced with any DAPT approach. CONCLUSION For the patients presented here, a benefit of online DAPT was shown, even if the daily optimisation is based on propagated structures with some residual uncertainties. However, a careful (offline) structure review is necessary and corrections can be included in an offline adaption.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Nenoff
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Michael Matter
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Mirjana Josipovic
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Antje-Christin Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Antony John Lomax
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Gitte F Persson
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Cássia O Ribeiro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine Visser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Marc Walser
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
| | - Damien Charles Weber
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland
| | - Ye Zhang
- Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Winterhalter C, Taylor M, Boersma D, Elia A, Guatelli S, Mackay R, Kirkby K, Maigne L, Ivanchenko V, Resch AF, Sarrut D, Sitch P, Vidal M, Grevillot L, Aitkenhead A. Evaluation of GATE-RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance. Med Phys 2020; 47:5817-5828. [PMID: 32967037 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Revised: 08/28/2020] [Accepted: 08/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Geant4 is a multi-purpose Monte Carlo simulation tool for modeling particle transport in matter. It provides a wide range of settings, which the user may optimize for their specific application. This study investigates GATE/Geant4 parameter settings for proton pencil beam scanning therapy. METHODS GATE8.1/Geant4.10.3.p03 (matching the versions used in GATE-RTion1.0) simulations were performed with a set of prebuilt Geant4 physics lists (QGSP_BIC, QGSP_BIC_EMY, QGSP_BIC_EMZ, QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ), using 0.1mm-10mm as production cuts on secondary particles (electrons, photons, positrons) and varying the maximum step size of protons (0.1mm, 1mm, none). The results of the simulations were compared to measurement data taken during clinical patient specific quality assurance at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust pencil beam scanning proton therapy facility. Additionally, the influence of simulation settings was quantified in a realistic patient anatomy based on computer tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS When comparing the different physics lists, only the results (ranges in water) obtained with QGSP_BIC (G4EMStandardPhysics_Option0) depend on the maximum step size. There is clinically negligible difference in the target region when using High Precision neutron models (HP) for dose calculations. The EMZ electromagnetic constructor provides a closer agreement (within 0.35 mm) to measured beam sizes in air, but yields up to 20% longer execution times compared to the EMY electromagnetic constructor (maximum beam size difference 0.79 mm). The impact of this on patient-specific quality assurance simulations is clinically negligible, with a 97% average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for both physics lists. However, when considering the CT-based patient model, dose deviations up to 2.4% are observed. Production cuts do not substantially influence dosimetric results in solid water, but lead to dose differences of up to 4.1% in the patient CT. Small (compared to voxel size) production cuts increase execution times by factors of 5 (solid water) and 2 (patient CT). CONCLUSIONS Taking both efficiency and dose accuracy into account and considering voxel sizes with 2 mm linear size, the authors recommend the following Geant4 settings to simulate patient specific quality assurance measurements: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (in the phantom and range-shifter) and 10 mm (world); best agreement to measurement data was found for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list at the cost of 20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY. For simulations considering the patient CT model, the following settings are recommended: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (phantom/range-shifter) and 10 mm (world) if the goal is to achieve sufficient dosimetric accuracy to ensure that a plan is clinically safe; or 0.1 mm (phantom/range-shifter) and 1 mm (world) if higher dosimetric accuracy is needed (increasing execution times by a factor of 2); most accurate results expected for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list, at the cost of 10-20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carla Winterhalter
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Michael Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - David Boersma
- ACMIT Gmbh, Viktor Kaplan-Straße 2, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria.,EBG MedAustron GmbH, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Alessio Elia
- EBG MedAustron GmbH, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Susanna Guatelli
- Centre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Ranald Mackay
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Karen Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Lydia Maigne
- Laboratoire de Physique de Clermont, UMR 6533 CNRS - University Clermont Auvergne, Aubière, France
| | - Vladimir Ivanchenko
- CERN, Geneva 23, 1211, Switzerland.,Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia
| | - Andreas F Resch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria
| | - David Sarrut
- Université de Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1044, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Peter Sitch
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Marie Vidal
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie - Centre Antoine Lacassagne - Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, 06200, France
| | - Loïc Grevillot
- EBG MedAustron GmbH, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Adam Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Nenoff L, Matter M, Jarhall AG, Winterhalter C, Gorgisyan J, Josipovic M, Persson GF, Munck af Rosenschold P, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Albertini F. Daily Adaptive Proton Therapy: Is it Appropriate to Use Analytical Dose Calculations for Plan Adaption? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:747-755. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2019] [Revised: 02/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
9
|
Hoffmann A, Oborn B, Moteabbed M, Yan S, Bortfeld T, Knopf A, Fuchs H, Georg D, Seco J, Spadea MF, Jäkel O, Kurz C, Parodi K. MR-guided proton therapy: a review and a preview. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:129. [PMID: 32471500 PMCID: PMC7260752 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01571-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 94] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2019] [Accepted: 05/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The targeting accuracy of proton therapy (PT) for moving soft-tissue tumours is expected to greatly improve by real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance. The integration of MRI and PT at the treatment isocenter would offer the opportunity of combining the unparalleled soft-tissue contrast and real-time imaging capabilities of MRI with the most conformal dose distribution and best dose steering capability provided by modern PT. However, hybrid systems for MR-integrated PT (MRiPT) have not been realized so far due to a number of hitherto open technological challenges. In recent years, various research groups have started addressing these challenges and exploring the technical feasibility and clinical potential of MRiPT. The aim of this contribution is to review the different aspects of MRiPT, to report on the status quo and to identify important future research topics. Methods Four aspects currently under study and their future directions are discussed: modelling and experimental investigations of electromagnetic interactions between the MRI and PT systems, integration of MRiPT workflows in clinical facilities, proton dose calculation algorithms in magnetic fields, and MRI-only based proton treatment planning approaches. Conclusions Although MRiPT is still in its infancy, significant progress on all four aspects has been made, showing promising results that justify further efforts for research and development to be undertaken. First non-clinical research solutions have recently been realized and are being thoroughly characterized. The prospect that first prototype MRiPT systems for clinical use will likely exist within the next 5 to 10 years seems realistic, but requires significant work to be performed by collaborative efforts of research groups and industrial partners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aswin Hoffmann
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Bradley Oborn
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.,Illawarra Cancer Care Centre, Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Maryam Moteabbed
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Susu Yan
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Thomas Bortfeld
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Antje Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Herman Fuchs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH, Vienna, Austria.,Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH, Vienna, Austria.,Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Joao Seco
- Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Maria Francesca Spadea
- Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
| | - Oliver Jäkel
- Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum DKFZ and Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center at the University Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Christopher Kurz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Garching, Germany
| | - Katia Parodi
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Garching, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Krieger M, Giger A, Salomir R, Bieri O, Celicanin Z, Cattin PC, Lomax AJ, Weber DC, Zhang Y. Impact of internal target volume definition for pencil beam scanned proton treatment planning in the presence of respiratory motion variability for lung cancer: A proof of concept. Radiother Oncol 2020; 145:154-161. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2019] [Revised: 11/15/2019] [Accepted: 12/03/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
11
|
Teoh S, Fiorini F, George B, Vallis KA, Van den Heuvel F. Is an analytical dose engine sufficient for intensity modulated proton therapy in lung cancer? Br J Radiol 2020; 93:20190583. [PMID: 31696729 PMCID: PMC7066954 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2019] [Revised: 11/02/2019] [Accepted: 11/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify a subgroup of lung cancer plans where the analytical dose calculation (ADC) algorithm may be clinically acceptable compared to Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS Robust-optimised IMPT plans were generated for 20 patients to a dose of 70 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 35 fractions in Raystation. For each case, four plans were generated: three with ADC optimisation using the pencil beam (PB) algorithm followed by a final dose calculation with the following algorithms: PB (PB-PB), MC (PB-MC) and MC normalised to prescription dose (PB-MC scaled). A fourth plan was generated where MC optimisation and final dose calculation was performed (MC-MC). Dose comparison and γ analysis (PB-PB vs PB-MC) at two dose thresholds were performed: 20% (D20) and 99% (D99) with PB-PB plans as reference. RESULTS Overestimation of the dose to 99% and mean dose of the clinical target volume was observed in all PB-MC compared to PB-PB plans (median: 3.7 Gy(RBE) (5%) (range: 2.3 to 6.9 Gy(RBE)) and 1.8 Gy(RBE) (3%) (0.5 to 4.6 Gy(RBE))). PB-MC scaled plans resulted in significantly higher CTVD2 compared to PB-PB (median difference: -4 Gy(RBE) (-6%) (-5.3 to -2.4 Gy(RBE)), p ≤ .001). The overall median γ pass rates (3%-3 mm) at D20 and D99 were 93.2% (range:62.2-97.5%) and 71.3 (15.4-92.0%). On multivariate analysis, presence of mediastinal disease and absence of range shifters were significantly associated with high γ pass rates. Median D20 and D99 pass rates with these predictors were 96.0% (95.3-97.5%) and 85.4% (75.1-92.0%). MC-MC achieved similar target coverage and doses to OAR compared to PB-PB plans. CONCLUSION In the presence of mediastinal involvement and absence of range shifters Raystation ADC may be clinically acceptable in lung IMPT. Otherwise, MC algorithm would be recommended to ensure accuracy of treatment plans. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Although MC algorithm is more accurate compared to ADC in lung IMPT, ADC may be clinically acceptable where there is mediastinal involvement and absence of range shifters.
Collapse
|
12
|
Chen M, Yepes P, Hojo Y, Poenisch F, Li Y, Chen J, Xu C, He X, Gunn GB, Frank SJ, Sahoo N, Li H, Zhu XR, Zhang X. Transitioning from measurement-based to combined patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated proton therapy. Br J Radiol 2019; 93:20190669. [PMID: 31799859 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study is part of ongoing efforts aiming to transit from measurement-based to combined patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). A Monte Carlo (MC) dose-calculation algorithm is used to improve the independent dose calculation and to reveal the beam modeling deficiency of the analytical pencil beam (PB) algorithm. METHODS A set of representative clinical IMPT plans with suboptimal PSQA results were reviewed. Verification plans were recalculated using an MC algorithm developed in-house. Agreements of PB and MC calculations with measurements that quantified by the γ passing rate were compared. RESULTS The percentage of dose planes that met the clinical criteria for PSQA (>90% γ passing rate using 3%/3 mm criteria) increased from 71.40% in the original PB calculation to 95.14% in the MC recalculation. For fields without beam modifiers, nearly 100% of the dose planes exceeded the 95% γ passing rate threshold using the MC algorithm. The model deficiencies of the PB algorithm were found in the proximal and distal regions of the SOBP, where MC recalculation improved the γ passing rate by 11.27% (p < 0.001) and 16.80% (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The MC algorithm substantially improved the γ passing rate for IMPT PSQA. Improved modeling of beam modifiers would enable the use of the MC algorithm for independent dose calculation, completely replacing additional depth measurements in IMPT PSQA program. For current users of the PB algorithm, further improving the long-tail modeling or using MC simulation to generate the dose correction factor is necessary. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE We justified a change in clinical practice to achieve efficient combined PSQA in IMPT by using the MC algorithm that was experimentally validated in almost all the clinical scenarios in our center. Deficiencies in beam modeling of the current PB algorithm were identified and solutions to improve its dose-calculation accuracy were provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mei Chen
- 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
| | - Pablo Yepes
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Physics and Astronomy Department, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yoshifumi Hojo
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Falk Poenisch
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yupeng Li
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jiayi Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Cheng Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaodong He
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - G Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Narayan Sahoo
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Xiaorong Ronald Zhu
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Matter M, Nenoff L, Meier G, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Albertini F. Intensity modulated proton therapy plan generation in under ten seconds. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1435-1439. [PMID: 31271095 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1630753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
Background: Treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can be significantly improved by reducing the time for plan calculation, facilitating efficient sampling of the large solution space characteristic of IMPT treatments. Additionally, fast plan generation is a key for online adaptive treatments, where the adapted plan needs to be ideally available in a few seconds. However, plan generation is a computationally demanding task and, although dose restoration methods for adaptive therapy have been proposed, computation times remain problematic. Material and methods: IMPT plan generation times were reduced by the development of dedicated graphical processing unit (GPU) kernels for our in-house, clinically validated, dose and optimization algorithms. The kernels were implemented into a coherent system, which performed all steps required for a complete treatment plan generation. Results: Using a single GPU, our fast implementation was able to generate a complete new treatment plan in 5-10 sec for typical IMPT cases, and in under 25 sec for plans to very large volumes such as for cranio-spinal axis irradiations. Although these times did not include the manual input of optimization parameters or a final clinical dose calculation, they included all required computational steps, including reading of CT and beam data. In addition, no compromise was made on plan quality. Target coverage and homogeneity for four patient plans improved (by up to 6%) or remained the same (changes <1%). No worsening of dose-volume parameters of the relevant organs at risk by more than 0.5% was observed. Conclusions: Fast plan generation with a clinically validated dose calculation and optimizer is a promising approach for daily adaptive proton therapy, as well as for automated or highly interactive planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Matter
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, ETH Hönggerberg, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Lena Nenoff
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, ETH Hönggerberg, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Gabriel Meier
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Damien C. Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Antony J. Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, ETH Hönggerberg, Zürich, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Nenoff L, Matter M, Hedlund Lindmar J, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Albertini F. Daily adaptive proton therapy - the key to innovative planning approaches for paranasal cancer treatments. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1423-1428. [PMID: 31364904 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1641217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
Background: For proton therapy of paranasal tumors, field directions avoiding volumes that might change during therapy are typically used. If the plan is optimized on the daily anatomy using daily adapted proton therapy (DAPT) however, field directions crossing the nasal cavities might be feasible. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of DAPT for enabling narrow-field treatment approaches. Material and methods: For five paranasal tumor patients, representing a wide patient spectrum, anatomically robust 4-field-star and narrow-field plans were calculated and their robustness to anatomical and setup uncertainties was compared with and without DAPT. Based on the nominal planning CTs, per patient up to 125 simulated CTs (simCTs) with different nasal cavity fillings were created and random translations and rotations due to patient setup uncertainties were further simulated. Plans were recalculated or re-optimized on all error scenarios, representing non-adapted and DAPT fractions, respectively. From these, 100 possible treatments (60 GyRBE, 30 fx) were simulated and changes in integral dose, target and organs at risk (OARs) doses evaluated. Results: In comparison to the 4-field-star approach, the use of narrow-fields reduced integral dose between 29% and 56%. If OARs did not overlap with the target, OAR doses were also reduced. Finally, the significantly reduced target coverage in non-adapted treatments (mean V95 reductions of up to 34%) could be almost fully restored with DAPT in all cases (differences <1%). Conclusions: DAPT was found to be not only an effective way to increase plan robustness to anatomical and positional uncertainties, but also opened the possibility to use improved and more conformal field arrangements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Nenoff
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Michael Matter
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Johanna Hedlund Lindmar
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Damien Charles Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Antony John Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Dosimetric validation of Monte Carlo and analytical dose engines with raster-scanning 1H, 4He, 12C, and 16O ion-beams using an anthropomorphic phantom. Phys Med 2019; 64:123-131. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2019] [Revised: 06/30/2019] [Accepted: 07/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
|