Evaluation of proton and carbon ion beam models in TReatment Planning for Particles 4D (TRiP4D) referring to a commercial treatment planning system.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of the treatment planning system (TPS) TRiP4D in reproducing doses computed by the clinically used TPS SyngoRT.

Methods: Proton and carbon ion beam models in TRiP4D were converted from SyngoRT. Cubic plans with different depths in a water-tank phantom (WP) and previously treated and experimentally verified patient plans from SyngoRT were recalculated in TRiP4D. The target mean dose deviation (ΔD_mean,T) and global gamma index (2%-2 mm for the absorbed dose and 3%-3mm for the RBE-weighted dose with 10% threshold) were evaluated.

Results: The carbon and proton absorbed dose gamma passing rates (γ-PRs) were ≥99.93% and ΔD_mean,T smaller than -0.22%. On average, the RBE-weighted dose D_mean,T was -1.26% lower for TRiP4D than SyngoRT for cubic plans. In TRiP4D, the faster analytical 'low dose approximation' (Krämer, 2006) was used, while SyngoRT used a stochastic implementation (Krämer, 2000). The average ΔD_{mean, T} could be reduced to -0.59% when applying the same biological effect calculation algorithm. However, the dose recalculation time increased by a factor of 79-477. ΔD_mean,T variation up to -2.27% and -2.79% was observed for carbon absorbed and RBE-weighted doses in patient plans. The γ-PRs were ≥93.92% and ≥91.83% for patient plans, except for one proton beam with a range shifter (γ-PR of 64.19%).

Conclusion: The absorbed dose between TRiP4D and SyngoRT were identical for both proton and carbon ion plans in the WP. Compared to SyngoRT, TRiP4D underestimated the target RBE-weighted dose; however more efficient in RBE-weighted dose calculation. Large variation for proton beam with range shifter was observed. TRiP4D will be used to evaluate doses delivered to moving targets. Uncertainties inherent to the 4D-dose reconstruction calculation are expected to be significantly larger than the dose errors reported here. For this reason, the residual differences between TRiP4D and SyngoRT observed in this study are considered acceptable. The study was approved by the Institutional Research Board of Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center (approval number SPHIC-MP-2020-04, RS).