A comprehensive dosimetric study of Monte Carlo and pencil-beam algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy for breast cancer.
IMPT
breast cancer
dose algorithms
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
23
08
2018
revised:
17
10
2018
accepted:
19
10
2018
pubmed:
30
11
2018
medline:
18
5
2019
entrez:
30
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
PB algorithms are commonly used for proton therapy. Previously reported limitations of the PB algorithm for proton therapy are mainly focused on high-density gradients and small-field dosimetry, the effect of PB algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for breast cancer has yet to be illuminated. In this study, we examined 20 patients with breast cancer and systematically investigated the dosimetric impact of MC and PB algorithms on IMPT. Four plans were generated for each patient: (a) a PB plan that optimized and computed the final dose using a PB algorithm; (b) a MC-recomputed plan that recomputed the final dose of the PB plan using a MC algorithm; (c) a MC-renormalized plan that renormalized the MC-recomputed plan to restore the target coverage; and (d) a MC-optimized plan that optimized and computed the final dose using a MC algorithm. The DVH on CTVs and on organ-at-risks (OARs) from each plan were studied. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used for testing the differences between any two types of plans. We found that PB algorithms significantly overestimated the target dose in breast IMPT plans. The median value of the CTV D
Identifiants
pubmed: 30488548
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12497
pmc: PMC6333133
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
128-136Informations de copyright
© 2018 University of Florida.
Références
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Apr 19;13(1):72
pubmed: 29673384
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Jul 1;86(3):484-90
pubmed: 23523326
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jun 1;89(2):424-30
pubmed: 24726289
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Feb 09;63(4):045003
pubmed: 29339570
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 15;9(10):e025556
pubmed: 31619413
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3):685-97
pubmed: 19615828
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Sep 12;62(19):7659-7681
pubmed: 28749373
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Mar 7;50(5):971-81
pubmed: 15798269
Med Phys. 2015 Aug;42(8):4840-7
pubmed: 26233211
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):1157-1164
pubmed: 26025779
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):411-421
pubmed: 26611875
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Nov 21;57(22):7673-88
pubmed: 23123683
Br J Radiol. 2014 Aug;87(1040):20140293
pubmed: 24896200
Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Feb;63:19-27
pubmed: 29197746
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017 Nov 06;3(1):8-15
pubmed: 29556573
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 1;99(3):750-756
pubmed: 28843371
Med Phys. 2018 Feb;45(2):846-862
pubmed: 29159915
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018 Apr;7(2):114-121
pubmed: 29876310
Med Phys. 2013 Aug;40(8):081704
pubmed: 23927301
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Nov 1;66(3):691-8
pubmed: 17011445