ObjectiveAnalytical dose calculation algorithms for Eclipse and Raystation treatment planning systems (TPS), as well as a Raystation Monte Carlo model are compared to corresponding measured point doses.MethodThe TPS were modeled with the same beam data acquired during commissioning. Thirty‐five typical plans were made with each planning system, 31 without range shifter and four with a 5 cm range shifter. Point doses in these planes were compared to measured doses.ResultsThe mean percentage difference for all plans between Raystation and Eclipse were 1.51 ± 1.99%. The mean percentage difference for all plans between TPS models and measured values are −2.06 ± 1.48% for Raystation pencil beam (PB), −0.59 ± 1.71% for Eclipse and −1.69 ± 1.11% for Raystation monte carlo (MC). The distribution for the patient plans were similar for Eclipse and Raystation MC with a P‐value of 0.59 for a two tailed unpaired t‐test and significantly different from the Raystation PB model with P = 0.0013 between Raystation MC and PB. All three models faired markedly better if plans with a 5 cm range shifter were ignored. Plan comparisons with a 5 cm range shifter give differences between Raystation and Eclipse of 3.77 ± 1.82%. The mean percentage difference for 5 cm range shifter plans between TPS models and measured values are −3.89 ± 2.79% for Raystation PB, −0.25 ± 3.85% for Eclipse and 1.55 ± 1.95% for Raystation MC.ConclusionBoth Eclipse and Raystation PB TPS are not always accurate within ±3% for a 5 cm range shifters or for small targets. This was improved with the Raystation MC model. The point dose calculations of Eclipse, Raystation PB, and Raystation MC compare within ±3% to measured doses for the other scenarios tested.
Purpose: To measure the skin dose and compare it with the calculated dose from a treatment planning system (TPS) for breast cancer treatment using scanning proton beam therapy (SPBT). Methods: A single en‐face‐beam SPBT plan was generated by a commercial TPS for two breast cancer patients. The treatment volumes were the entire breasts (218 cc and 1500 cc) prescribed to 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. A range shifter of 5 cm water equivalent thickness was used. The organ at risk (skin) was defined to be 5 mm thick from the surface. The skin doses were measured in water with an ADCL calibrated parallel plate (PP) chamber. The measured data were compared with the values calculated in the TPS. Skin dose calculations can be subject to uncertainties created by the definition of the external contour and the limitations of the correction based algorithms, such as proton convolution superposition. Hence, the external contours were expanded by 0, 3 mm and 1 cm to include additional pixels for dose calculation. In addition, to examine the effects of the cloth gown on the skin dose, the skin dose measurements were conducted with and without gown. Results: On average the measured skin dose was 4% higher than the calculated values. At deeper depths, the measured and calculated doses were in better agreement (< 2%). Large discrepancy occur for the dose calculated without external expansion due to volume averaging. The addition of the gown only increased the measured skin dose by 0.4%. Conclusion: The implemented TPS underestimated the skin dose for breast treatments. Superficial dose calculation without external expansion would result in large errors for SPBT for breast cancer.
Purpose: To establish patient surface dose dosimetry for scanning proton beam therapy (SPBT) for breast cancer using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD). Methods: OSLDs were calibrated with SPB under the similar conditions as the treatments for breast cancer. A range shifter (RS) of 5 cm water equivalent thickness (WET) was used. The air gap from the surface of the range shifter to the surface of the phantom was 15 cm. A uniform planar dose generated by nominal energy of 118 MeV was delivered. The range of 118 MeV proton beam after the 5cm RS is approximately 5 cm in water, which is the common range for breast treatments. The OSLDs were placed on the surface of high density polyethylene slabs, and a bolus of 1.06 cm WET was used for buildup. A variety of dose levels in the range of 0.5 to 8 Gy were delivered. Under the same condition, an ADCL calibrated parallel plate (PP) chamber was used to measure the reference dose. The correlation between the output signals of OSLDs and the reference doses was established. The calibration of OSLD was verified against the PP chamber measurements for two SPBT breast plans calculated for two patients. Results: the least squares fitting for the OSLD calibration curve was a polynomial function to the order of 2 in the range of 0.5 to 8 Gy (RBE). The differences between the dose measured with OSLDs and PP chamber were within 3% for the two breast proton plans. Conclusion: the calibrated OSLDs under the similar conditions as the treatments can be used for patient surface dose measurements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.