Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29876316›Full record

ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2018

Advanced Proton Beam Dosimetry Part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms.

Jatinder Saini, Erik Traneus, Dominic Maes, Rajesh Regmi, Stephen R Bowen, Charles Bloch, Tony Wong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Contour-based lung dose prediction for breast proton therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jatinder SainiSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Erik TraneusRaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dominic MaesSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Rajesh RegmiSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephen R BowenSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Charles BlochSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tony WongSeattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Indexed as

analytical dose calculation algorithmsMonte Carlo dose calculation algorithmspencil beam dose calculation algorithmspencil beam scanningProton therapyspot scanning

Identifiers

PMID29876316
PMCPMC5960652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.