Purpose: The aim of this work was to evaluate the feasibility of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and deformable image registration (DIR)-based ''dose of the day'' calculations for adaptive proton therapy. Methods: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy plans were designed for 3 head and neck patients that required replanning, and hence had a replan computed tomography (CT). Proton plans were generated for different beam arrangements and optimizations: intensity modulated proton therapy and single-field uniform dose. We used an in-house DIR software implemented at our institution to generate a deformed CT, by warping the planning CT onto the daily CBCT. This CBCT had a similar patient geometry to the replanned CT. Dose distributions on the replanned CT were considered the gold standard for ''dose of the day'' calculations, and were compared with doses on deformed CT (our method) and directly on the calibrated CBCT and rigidly aligned planning CT (alternative methods) in terms of dose difference (DD), by calculating the percentage of voxels whose DD was smaller than 2% of the prescribed dose (DD 2%-pp) and the root mean square of the DD distribution (DD RMS). Results: Using a deformed CT, the DD 2%-pp within the CBCT imaging volume was 93.2% 6 0.7% for IMRT, and 87% 6 3% for proton plans. In a region of higher dose gradient, we found that although DD 2%-pp was 94.3% 6 0.2% for IMRT, in proton plans, it dropped to 74% 6 4%. A larger number of treatment beams and single-field uniform dose optimization appear to make the proton plans less sensitive to DIR errors. For example, within the treated volume, the DD RMS was reduced from 2.6% 6 0.6% of the prescribed dose to 1.0% 6 1.3% of the prescribed dose when using single-field uniform dose optimization. Conclusions: Promising results were found for DIR-and CBCT-based proton dose calculations. Proton dose calculations were, however, more sensitive to registration errors than IMRT doses were, particularly in high dose gradient regions.
Purpose In pencil beam scanning proton therapy, target coverage is achieved by scanning the pencil beam laterally in the x‐ and y‐directions and delivering spots of dose to positions at a given radiological depth (layer). Dose is delivered to the spots on different layers by pencil beams of different energy until the entire volume has been irradiated. The aim of this study is to investigate the implementation of proton planning parameters (spot spacing, layer spacing and margins) in four commercial proton treatment planning systems (TPSs): Eclipse, Pinnacle3, RayStation and XiO. Materials and Methods Using identical beam data in each TPS, plans were created on uniform material synthetic phantoms with cubic targets. The following parameters were systematically varied in each TPS to observe their different implementations: spot spacing, layer spacing and margin. Additionally, plans were created in Eclipse to investigate the impact of these parameters on plan delivery and optimal values are suggested. Results It was found that all systems except Eclipse use a variable layer spacing per beam, based on the Bragg peak width of each energy layer. It is recommended that if this cannot be used, then a constant value of 5 mm will ensure good dose homogeneity. Only RayStation varies the spot spacing according to the variable spot size with depth. If a constant spot spacing is to be used, a value of 5 mm is recommended as a good compromise between dose homogeneity, plan robustness and planning time. It was found that both Pinnacle3 and RayStation position spots outside of the defined volume (target plus margin). Conclusions All four systems are capable of delivering uniform dose distributions to simple targets, but their implementation of the various planning parameters is different. In this paper comparisons are made between the four systems and recommendations are made as to the values that will provide the best compromise in dose homogeneity and planning time.
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.