Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy planning. Issue 5 (25th February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Feygelman, Vladimir; Latifi, Kujtim; Bowers, Mark; Greco, Kevin; Moros, Eduardo G.; Isacson, Max; Angerud, Agnes; Caudell, Jimmy
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-02-25
• Subjects: head and neck planning -- Monte Carlo treatment planning -- treatment planning algorithm transition; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13572
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissue, the switch to MC presents challenges in preserving the parameters of care. The differences in dose‐to‐tissue were widely discussed in the literature, but mostly in the context of recalculating the existing plans rather than reoptimizing with the MC dose engine. Also, the target dose homogeneity received less attention. We adhere to strict dose homogeneity objectives in clinical practice. In this study, we started with 21 clinical volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans previously developed in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Those plans were recalculated "as is" with RayStation (RS) MC algorithm and then reoptimized in RS with both collapsed cone (CC) and MC algorithms. MC statistical uncertainty (0.3%) was selected carefully to balance the dose computation time (1–2 min) with the planning target volume (PTV) dose‐volume histogram (DVH) shape approaching that of a "noise‐free" calculation. When the hot spot in head and neck MC‐based treatment planning is defined as dose to 0.03 cc, it is exceedingly difficult to limit it to 105% of the prescription dose, as we were used to with the CC algorithm. The average hot spot after optimization and calculation with RS MC was statistically significantly higher compared to Pinnacle and RS CC algorithms by 1.2 and 1.0 %, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) observed in this study suggests that in most cases a hot spot of ≤107% is achievable. Compared to the 95% CI for the previous clinical plans recalculated with RS MC "as is" (upper limit 108%), in real terms this result is at least as good or better than the historic plans.