Dose calculation differences between Monte Carlo and pencil beam depend on the tumor locations and volumes for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been increasingly used as an efficacious treatment modality for early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer. The accuracy of dose calculations is compromised due to the presence of inhomogeneity. For the purpose of a consistent prescription, radiation doses were calculated without heterogeneity correction in several RTOG trials. For patients participating in these trials, recalculations of the planned doses with more accurate dose methods could provide better correlations between the treatment outcomes and the planned doses. Using a Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm as a gold standard, we compared the recalculated doses with the MC algorithm to the original pencil beam (PB) calculations for our institutional clinical lung SBRT plans. The focus of this comparison is to investigate the volume and location dependence on the differences between the two dose calculations. Thirty‐one clinical plans that followed RTOG and other protocol guidelines were retrospectively investigated in this study. Dosimetric parameters, such as D1, D95, and D99 for the PTV and D1 for organs at risk, were compared between two calculations. Correlations of mean lung dose and V20 of lungs between two calculations were investigated. Significant dependence on tumor size and location was observed from the comparisons between the two dose calculation methods. When comparing the PB calculations without heterogeneity correction to the MC calculations with heterogeneity correction, we found that in terms of D95 of PTV: (1) the two calculations resulted in similar D95 for edge tumors with volumes greater than 25.1 cc; (2) an average overestimation of 5% in PB calculations for edge tumors with volumes less than 25.1 cc; and (3) an average overestimation of 9% or underestimation of 3% in PB calculations for island tumors with volumes smaller or greater than 22.6 cc, respectively. With heterogeneity correction, the PB calculations resulted in an average reduction of 23.8% and 15.3% in the D95 for the PTV for island and edge lesions, respectively, when compared to the MC calculations. For organs at risks, very small differences were found among all the comparisons. Excellent correlations for mean dose and V20 of lungs were observed between the two calculations. This study demonstrated that using a single scaling factor may be overly simplified when accounting for the effects of heterogeneity correction. Accurate dose calculations, such as the Monte Carlo algorithms, are highly recommended to understand dose responses in lung SBRT.PACS number: 87.53.Ly

Dose differences in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy plans calculated with pencil beam and Monte Carlo for lung SBRT

“…A future study with a larger sample size of patients is necessary to confirm our observation of the tumor volume independence for centrally located tumors. In contrast to previous studies, (9) the ratios of ${\mathrm{D}}_1,{\mathrm{D}}_{99}$, and ${\mathrm{D}}_1$ of the PTV between the PB and MC calculations were similar for the centrally and peripherally located tumors, suggesting dose differences between the PB and MC calculations do not depend on tumor location for IMRT plans.…”

“…A simple rescaling can be applied to the volume/dose endpoints when considering radiation treatment related toxicity to the lungs. Previous studies reported that PB calculations overestimated MLD by 7% when compared to MC calculations for centrally located tumors, (16) and by 5% for patients with the peripheral tumors (9) . However, no significant differences were observed between the PB and MC calculations for the MLD in our patient samples.…”

“…A small but statistically significant overestimation of the maximum dose of the PTV was found in the PB calculation when compared to that from the MC calculation. In our previous study, (9) we reported that the maximum dose was underestimated only by the PB calculation without tissue heterogeneity correction. The difference from this study and our previous study may be attributed to whether or not the tissue heterogeneity correction is applied.…”

“…If IMRT is the technique employed in delivering the treatment, it is unclear whether involving small segments in IMRT plans would deviate the dose differences between the MC and PB calculation from those of 3D CRT plans as previously reported 8 , 9 . Recent work by Chetty et al (10) considered IMRT and 3D CRT plans, and analyzed dose differences between the PB calculations and a variety of other calculation methods; they also found tumor and volume dependence for 133 NSCLC patients treated using 48 Gy in 4 fractions.…”

“…Previous works have demonstrated dose differences in SBRT delivered with 3D CRT between the PB and other methods including the MC calculation, 8 , 9 and furthermore, our work has shown that the dose differences exhibit a strong tumor volume and location dependence (9) . If IMRT is the technique employed in delivering the treatment, it is unclear whether involving small segments in IMRT plans would deviate the dose differences between the MC and PB calculation from those of 3D CRT plans as previously reported 8 , 9 .…”