Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Daily Adaptive Proton Therapy: Is it Appropriate to Use Analytical Dose Calculations for Plan Adaption?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. ILROG Lymphoma Mini-Atlas Part II, Hodgkin Lymphoma

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearchpeer-review

  2. Diminishing Returns From Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. The Feasibility of Implementing Deep Inspiration Breath-Hold for Pediatric Radiation Therapy

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Forecasting lung cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence to year 2030

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Nationwide Survival Benefit after Implementation of First-Line Immunotherapy for Patients with Advanced NSCLC-Real World Efficacy

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Intrafractional fiducial marker position variations in stereotactic liver radiotherapy during voluntary deep inspiration breath-hold

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

PURPOSE: The accuracy of analytical dose calculations (ADC) and dose uncertainties resulting from anatomical changes are both limiting factors in proton therapy. For the latter, rapid plan adaption is necessary; for the former, Monte Carlo (MC) approaches are increasingly recommended. These, however, are inherently slower than analytical approaches, potentially limiting the ability to rapidly adapt plans. Here, we compare the clinical relevance of uncertainties resulting from both.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients with non-small cell lung cancer with up to 9 computed tomography (CT) scans acquired during treatment and five paranasal (head and neck) patients with 10 simulated anatomical changes (sinus filling) were analyzed. On the initial planning CT scans, treatment plans were optimized and calculated using an ADC and then recalculated with MC. Additionally, all plans were recalculated (non-adapted) and reoptimized (adapted) on each repeated CT using the same ADC as for the initial plan, and the resulting dose distributions were compared.

RESULTS: When comparing analytical and MC calculations in the initial treatment plan and averaged over all patients, 94.2% (non-small cell lung cancer) and 98.5% (head and neck) of voxels had differences <±5%, and only minor differences in clinical target volume (CTV) V95 (average <2%) were observed. In contrast, when recalculating nominal plans on the repeat (anatomically changed) CT scans, CTV V95 degraded by up to 34%. Plan adaption, however, restored CTV V95 differences between adapted and nominal plans to <0.5%. Adapted organ-at-risk doses remained the same or improved.

CONCLUSIONS: Dose degradations caused by anatomic changes are substantially larger than uncertainties introduced by the use of analytical instead of MC dose calculations. Thus, if the use of analytical calculations can enable more rapid and efficient plan adaption than MC approaches, they can and should be used for plan adaption for these patient groups.

Original languageEnglish
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume107
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)747-755
Number of pages9
ISSN0360-3016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Jul 2020

ID: 61759588