How to cite item

Advanced proton beam dosimetry part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms

	author = {Jatinder Saini and Erik Traneus and Dominic Maes and Rajesh Regmi and Stephen R. Bowen and Charles Bloch and Tony Wong},
	title = {Advanced proton beam dosimetry part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms},
	journal = {Translational Lung Cancer Research},
	volume = {7},
	number = {2},
	year = {2018},
	keywords = {},
	abstract = {The accuracy of dose calculation is vital to the quality of care for patients undergoing proton beam therapy (PBT). Currently, the dose calculation algorithms available in commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) in PBT are classified into two classes: Pencil Beam (PB) and Monte-Carlo (MC) algorithms. PB algorithms are still regarded as the standard of practice in PBT, but they are analytical approximations whereas MC algorithms use random sampling of interaction cross-sections that represent the underlying physics to simulate individual particles trajectories. This article provides a brief review of PB and MC dose calculation algorithms employed in commercial treatment planning systems and their performance comparison in phantoms through simulations and measurements. Deficiencies of PB algorithms are first highlighted by a simplified simulation demonstrating the transport of a single sub-spot of proton beam that is incident at an oblique angle in a water phantom. Next, more typical cases of clinical beams in water phantom are presented and compared to measurements. The inability of PB to correctly predict the range and subsequently distal fall-off is emphasized. Through the presented examples, it is shown how dose errors as high as 30% can result with use of a PB algorithm. These dose errors can be minimized to clinically acceptable levels of less than 5%, if MC algorithm is employed in TPS. As a final illustration, comparison between PB and MC algorithm is made for a clinical beam that is use to deliver uniform dose to a target in a lung section of an anthropomorphic phantom. It is shown that MC algorithm is able to correctly predict the dose at all depths and matched with measurements. For PB algorithm, there is an increasing mismatch with the measured doses with increasing tissue heterogeneity. The findings of this article provide a foundation for the second article of this series to compare MC vs. PB based lung cancer treatment planning.},
	issn = {2226-4477},	url = {}