Automated Monte-Carlo Re-calculation of Proton Therapy Plans Using Geant4/Gate: Implementation and Comparison to Plan-specific Quality Assurance Measurements

Overview

Journal Br J Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Radiology

Date 2020 Jul 30

PMID 32726141

Citations 8

Authors

Adam H Aitkenhead

Peter Sitch

Jenny C Richardson

Carla Winterhalter

Imran Patel

Ranald I Mackay

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Software re-calculation of proton pencil beam scanning plans provides a method of verifying treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations prior to patient treatment. This study describes the implementation of AutoMC, a Geant4 v10.3.3/Gate v8.1 (Gate-RTion v1.0)-based Monte-Carlo (MC) system for automated plan re-calculation, and presents verification results for 153 patients (730 fields) planned within year one of the proton service at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust.

Methods: A MC beam model for a Varian ProBeam delivery system with four range-shifter options (none, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm) was derived from beam commissioning data and implemented in AutoMC. MC and TPS (Varian Eclipse v13.7) calculations of 730 fields in solid-water were compared to physical plan-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements acquired using a PTW Octavius 1500XDR array and PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D ion chamber.

Results: TPS and MC showed good agreement with array measurements, evaluated using γ analyses at 3%, 3 mm with a 10% lower dose threshold:>94% of fields calculated by the TPS and >99% of fields calculated by MC had γ ≤ 1 for>95% of measurement points within the plane. TPS and MC also showed good agreement with chamber measurements of absolute dose, with systematic differences of <1.5% for all range-shifter options.

Conclusions: Reliable independent verification of the TPS dose calculation is a valuable complement to physical PSQA and may facilitate reduction of the physical PSQA workload alongside a thorough delivery system quality assurance programme.

Advances In Knowledge: A Gate/Geant4-based MC system is thoroughly validated against an extensive physical PSQA dataset for 730 clinical fields, showing that clinical implementation of MC for PSQA is feasible.

Citing Articles

Emulating the Delivery of Sawtooth Proton Arc Therapy Plans on a Cyclotron-Based Proton Beam Therapy System.

Burford-Eyre S, Aitkenhead A, Aylward J, Henthorn N, Ingram S, Mackay R Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(19).

PMID: 39409935 PMC: 11475827. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16193315.

Commissioning and clinical implementation of an independent dose calculation system for scanned proton beams.

Dreindl R, Bolsa-Ferruz M, Fayos-Sola R, Padilla Cabal F, Scheuchenpflug L, Elia A J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 25(5):e14328.

PMID: 38553788 PMC: 11087175. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14328.

Proton linear energy transfer and variable relative biological effectiveness for adolescent patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.

Rechner L, Maraldo M, Smith E, Lundgaard A, Hjalgrim L, Mackay R BJR Open. 2023; 5(1):20230012.

PMID: 37035769 PMC: 10077416. DOI: 10.1259/bjro.20230012.

The OpenGATE ecosystem for Monte Carlo simulation in medical physics.

Sarrut D, Arbor N, Baudier T, Borys D, Etxebeste A, Fuchs H Phys Med Biol. 2022; 67(18).

PMID: 36001985 PMC: 11149651. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac8c83.

A preclinical radiotherapy dosimetry audit using a realistic 3D printed murine phantom.

Biglin E, Aitkenhead A, Price G, Chadwick A, Santina E, Williams K Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):6826.

PMID: 35474242 PMC: 9042835. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10895-5.

References

Meier G, Besson R, Nanz A, Safai S, Lomax A . Independent dose calculations for commissioning, quality assurance and dose reconstruction of PBS proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(7):2819-36. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/7/2819. View

Jan S, Benoit D, Becheva E, Carlier T, Cassol F, Descourt P . GATE V6: a major enhancement of the GATE simulation platform enabling modelling of CT and radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(4):881-901. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/4/001. View

Paganetti H . Dose to water versus dose to medium in proton beam therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54(14):4399-421. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/14/004. View

Smith E, Henthorn N, Warmenhoven J, Ingram S, Aitkenhead A, Richardson J . In Silico Models of DNA Damage and Repair in Proton Treatment Planning: A Proof of Concept. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):19870. PMC: 6934522. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-56258-5. View

Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A . The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996; 41(1):111-24. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/41/1/009. View

Arjomandy B, Sahoo N, Ciangaru G, Zhu R, Song X, Gillin M . Verification of patient-specific dose distributions in proton therapy using a commercial two-dimensional ion chamber array. Med Phys. 2010; 37(11):5831-7. DOI: 10.1118/1.3505011. View

Elia A, Resch A, Carlino A, Bohlen T, Fuchs H, Palmans H . A GATE/Geant4 beam model for the MedAustron non-isocentric proton treatment plans quality assurance. Phys Med. 2020; 71:115-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.02.006. View

Grevillot L, Boersma D, Fuchs H, Aitkenhead A, Elia A, Bolsa M . Technical Note: GATE-RTion: a GATE/Geant4 release for clinical applications in scanned ion beam therapy. Med Phys. 2020; 47(8):3675-3681. DOI: 10.1002/mp.14242. 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.

Verburg J, Grassberger C, Dowdell S, Schuemann J, Seco J, Paganetti H . Automated Monte Carlo Simulation of Proton Therapy Treatment Plans. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2015; 15(6):NP35-NP46. DOI: 10.1177/1533034615614139. View

11.

Lin L, Kang M, Solberg T, Mertens T, Baeumer C, Ainsley C . Use of a novel two-dimensional ionization chamber array for pencil beam scanning proton therapy beam quality assurance. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16(3):5323. PMC: 5690130. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i3.5323. View

12.

Sawakuchi G, Mirkovic D, Perles L, Sahoo N, Zhu X, Ciangaru G . An MCNPX Monte Carlo model of a discrete spot scanning proton beam therapy nozzle. Med Phys. 2010; 37(9):4960-70. PMC: 2941520. DOI: 10.1118/1.3476458. View

13.

Winterhalter C, Aitkenhead A, Oxley D, Richardson J, Weber D, Mackay R . Pitfalls in the beam modelling process of Monte Carlo calculations for proton pencil beam scanning. Br J Radiol. 2020; 93(1107):20190919. PMC: 7066947. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190919. View

14.

Menzel H, Clement C, Deluca P . ICRP Publication 110. Realistic reference phantoms: an ICRP/ICRU joint effort. A report of adult reference computational phantoms. Ann ICRP. 2009; 39(2):1-164. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2009.09.001. View

15.

Beltran C, Wan Chan Tseung H, Augustine K, Bues M, Mundy D, Walsh T . Clinical Implementation of a Proton Dose Verification System Utilizing a GPU Accelerated Monte Carlo Engine. Int J Part Ther. 2019; 3(2):312-319. PMC: 6871619. DOI: 10.14338/IJPT-16-00011.1. View

16.

Low D, Dempsey J . Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys. 2003; 30(9):2455-64. DOI: 10.1118/1.1598711. View

17.

Fracchiolla F, Lorentini S, Widesott L, Schwarz M . Characterization and validation of a Monte Carlo code for independent dose calculation in proton therapy treatments with pencil beam scanning. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(21):8601-19. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/21/8601. View

18.

Perl J, Shin J, Schumann J, Faddegon B, Paganetti H . TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. Med Phys. 2012; 39(11):6818-37. PMC: 3493036. DOI: 10.1118/1.4758060. View

19.

Low D, Harms W, Mutic S, Purdy J . A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998; 25(5):656-61. DOI: 10.1118/1.598248. View

20.

Guterres Marmitt G, Pin A, Ng Wei Siang K, Janssens G, Souris K, Cohilis M . Platform for automatic patient quality assurance via Monte Carlo simulations in proton therapy. Phys Med. 2020; 70:49-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.12.018. View