A Clinical Study of Lung Cancer Dose Calculation Accuracy with Monte Carlo Simulation

Overview

Journal Radiat Oncol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Oncology
Radiology

Date 2014 Dec 17

PMID 25511623

Citations 15

Authors

Yanqun Zhao

Guohai Qi

Gang Yin

Xianliang Wang

Pei Wang

Jian Li

Mingyong Xiao

Jie Li

Shengwei Kang

Xiongfei Liao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of dose calculation is crucial to the quality of treatment planning and, consequently, to the dose delivered to patients undergoing radiation therapy. Current general calculation algorithms such as Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) have shortcomings in regard to severe inhomogeneities, particularly in those regions where charged particle equilibrium does not hold. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the PBC and CCC algorithms in lung cancer radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) technology.

Methods And Materials: Four treatment plans were designed using Oncentra Masterplan TPS for each patient. Two intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were developed using the PBC and CCC algorithms, and two three-dimensional conformal therapy (3DCRT) plans were developed using the PBC and CCC algorithms. The DICOM-RT files of the treatment plans were exported to the Monte Carlo system to recalculate. The dose distributions of GTV, PTV and ipsilateral lung calculated by the TPS and MC were compared.

Result: For 3DCRT and IMRT plans, the mean dose differences for GTV between the CCC and MC increased with decreasing of the GTV volume. For IMRT, the mean dose differences were found to be higher than that of 3DCRT. The CCC algorithm overestimated the GTV mean dose by approximately 3% for IMRT. For 3DCRT plans, when the volume of the GTV was greater than 100 cm(3), the mean doses calculated by CCC and MC almost have no difference. PBC shows large deviations from the MC algorithm. For the dose to the ipsilateral lung, the CCC algorithm overestimated the dose to the entire lung, and the PBC algorithm overestimated V20 but underestimated V5; the difference in V10 was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: PBC substantially overestimates the dose to the tumour, but the CCC is similar to the MC simulation. It is recommended that the treatment plans for lung cancer be developed using an advanced dose calculation algorithm other than PBC. MC can accurately calculate the dose distribution in lung cancer and can provide a notably effective tool for benchmarking the performance of other dose calculation algorithms within patients.

Citing Articles

Dosimetric Impact of Prescription Point Placement in Heterogeneous Medium for Conformal Radiotherapy Dose Calculation with Various Algorithms.

Pandu B, Khanna D, Palanisamy M, Jacob S, Manichan S J Med Phys. 2024; 49(3):400-409.

PMID: 39526146 PMC: 11548077. DOI: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_71_24.

Application of a linear interpolation algorithm in radiation therapy dosimetry for 3D dose point acquisition.

Guo Y, Li B, Li Y, Du W, Feng W, Feng S Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):4539.

PMID: 36941321 PMC: 10027884. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-31562-3.

Monte Carlo evaluation of target dose coverage in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy with flattening filter-free beams.

Vassiliev O, Peterson C, Chang J, Mohan R J Radiother Pract. 2022; 21(1):81-87.

PMID: 35401050 PMC: 8992779. DOI: 10.1017/s1460396920000886.

Positron emission tomography guided dose painting by numbers of lung cancer: Alanine dosimetry in an anthropomorphic phantom.

Papoutsis I, Knudtsen I, Peter Skaug Sande E, Rekstad B, Ollers M, van Elmpt W Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022; 21:101-107.

PMID: 35243040 PMC: 8885607. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.02.013.

Development of a Tongue Immobilization Device Using a 3D Printer for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy of Nasopharyngeal Cancer Patients.

Ju S, Ahn Y, Kim Y, Park S, Choi Y, Na C Cancer Res Treat. 2020; 53(1):45-54.

PMID: 32972044 PMC: 7812000. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2020.572.

References

Vanderstraeten B, Reynaert N, Paelinck L, Madani I, De Wagter C, De Gersem W . Accuracy of patient dose calculation for lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, convolution/superposition, and pencil beam computations. Med Phys. 2006; 33(9):3149-58. DOI: 10.1118/1.2241992. View

Krieger T, Sauer O . Monte Carlo- versus pencil-beam-/collapsed-cone-dose calculation in a heterogeneous multi-layer phantom. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(5):859-68. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/010. View

Wilcox E, Daskalov G, Pavlonnis 3rd G, Shumway R, Kaplan B, VanRooy E . Dosimetric verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy of 172 patients treated for various disease sites: comparison of EBT film dosimetry, ion chamber measurements, and independent MU calculations. Med Dosim. 2008; 33(4):303-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2008.03.004. View

Aarup L, Nahum A, Zacharatou C, Juhler-Nottrup T, Knoos T, Nystrom H . The effect of different lung densities on the accuracy of various radiotherapy dose calculation methods: implications for tumour coverage. Radiother Oncol. 2009; 91(3):405-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.01.008. View

Chen H, Lohr F, Fritz P, Wenz F, Dobler B, Lorenz F . Stereotactic, single-dose irradiation of lung tumors: a comparison of absolute dose and dose distribution between pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms based on actual patient CT scans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 78(3):955-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.012. View

Vinall A, Williams A, Currie V, Van Esch A, Huyskens D . Practical guidelines for routine intensity-modulated radiotherapy verification: pre-treatment verification with portal dosimetry and treatment verification with in vivo dosimetry. Br J Radiol. 2010; 83(995):949-57. PMC: 3473728. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/31573847. View

Nelms B, Zhen H, Tome W . Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 2011; 38(2):1037-44. PMC: 3188652. DOI: 10.1118/1.3544657. View

Kry S, Alvarez P, Molineu A, Amador C, Galvin J, Followill D . Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 85(1):e95-100. PMC: 3522855. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.039. View

Siochi R, Molineu A, Orton C . Point/Counterpoint. Patient-specific QA for IMRT should be performed using software rather than hardware methods. Med Phys. 2013; 40(7):070601. DOI: 10.1118/1.4794929. View

10.

Yang J, Li J, Chen L, Price R, McNeeley S, Qin L . Dosimetric verification of IMRT treatment planning using Monte Carlo simulations for prostate cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(5):869-78. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/011. View

11.

De Neve W, De Wagter C . Lethal pneumonitis in a phase I study of chemotherapy and IMRT for NSCLC: the need to investigate the accuracy of dose computation. Radiother Oncol. 2005; 75(2):246-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2005.03.024. View

12.

Siebers J, Keall P, Nahum A, Mohan R . Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2000; 45(4):983-95. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/4/313. View

13.

Liu H . Dm rather than Dw should be used in Monte Carlo treatment planning. For the proposition. Med Phys. 2002; 29(5):922-3. DOI: 10.1118/1.1473137. View

14.

Ma C, Li J, Pawlicki T, Jiang S, Deng J, Lee M . A Monte Carlo dose calculation tool for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2002; 47(10):1671-89. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/47/10/305. View

15.

Wang L, Yorke E, Chui C . Monte Carlo evaluation of 6 MV intensity modulated radiotherapy plans for head and neck and lung treatments. Med Phys. 2002; 29(11):2705-17. DOI: 10.1118/1.1517291. View

16.

KORNELSEN R, Young M . Changes in the dose-profile of a 10 MV x-ray beam within and beyond low density material. Med Phys. 1982; 9(1):114-6. DOI: 10.1118/1.595059. View

17.

Mackie T, Battista J, Scrimger J, Van Dyk J, Cunningham J . Lung dose corrections for 6- and 15-MV x rays. Med Phys. 1985; 12(3):327-32. DOI: 10.1118/1.595691. View

18.

Werner B, Das I, Khan F, Meigooni A . Dose perturbations at interfaces in photon beams. Med Phys. 1987; 14(4):585-95. DOI: 10.1118/1.596023. View

19.

Mijnheer B, Rice R, Chin L . Lead-polystyrene transition zone dosimetry in high-energy photon beams. Radiother Oncol. 1988; 11(4):379-86. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8140(88)90209-5. View

20.

Rice R, Mijnheer B, Chin L . Benchmark measurements for lung dose corrections for X-ray beams. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1988; 15(2):399-409. DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(98)90022-0. View