Intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning using single-field optimization: The impact of monitor unit constraints on plan quality

X. R. Zhu, N. Sahoo, X. Zhang, D. Robertson, Heng Li, S. Choi, A. K. Lee, M. T. Gillin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effect of monitor unit (MU) constraints on the dose distribution created by intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning using single-field optimization (SFO). Methods: Ninety-four energies between 72.5 and 221.8 MeV are available for scanning beam IMPT delivery at our institution. The minimum and maximum MUs for delivering each pencil beam (spot) are 0.005 and 0.04, respectively. These MU constraints are not considered during optimization by the treatment planning system; spots are converted to deliverable MUs during postprocessing. Treatment plans for delivering uniform doses to rectangular volumes with and without MU constraints were generated for different target doses, spot spacings, spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) widths, and ranges in a homogeneous phantom. Four prostate cancer patients were planned with and without MU constraints using different spot spacings. Rounding errors were analyzed using an in-house software tool. Results: From the phantom study, the authors have found that both the number of spots that have rounding errors and the magnitude of the distortion of the dose distribution from the ideally optimized distribution increases as the field dose, spot spacing, and range decrease and as the SOBP width increases. From our study of patient plans, it is clear that as the spot spacing decreases the rounding error increases, and the dose coverage of the target volume becomes unacceptable for very small spot spacings. Conclusions: Constraints on deliverable MU for each spot could create a significant distortion from the ideally optimized dose distributions for IMPT fields using SFO. To eliminate this problem, the treatment planning system should incorporate the MU constraints in the optimization process and the delivery system should reliably delivery smaller minimum MUs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1210-1219
Number of pages10
JournalMedical physics
Volume37
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Proton Therapy
Therapeutics
Prostatic Neoplasms
Software

Keywords

  • IMPT
  • Monitor unit constraints
  • Single-field optimization
  • Spot scanning proton therapy
  • Treatment planning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning using single-field optimization : The impact of monitor unit constraints on plan quality. / Zhu, X. R.; Sahoo, N.; Zhang, X.; Robertson, D.; Li, Heng; Choi, S.; Lee, A. K.; Gillin, M. T.

In: Medical physics, Vol. 37, No. 3, 01.01.2010, p. 1210-1219.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zhu, X. R. ; Sahoo, N. ; Zhang, X. ; Robertson, D. ; Li, Heng ; Choi, S. ; Lee, A. K. ; Gillin, M. T. / Intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning using single-field optimization : The impact of monitor unit constraints on plan quality. In: Medical physics. 2010 ; Vol. 37, No. 3. pp. 1210-1219.
@article{d6e3028efd2443869297f367d2afd11f,
title = "Intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning using single-field optimization: The impact of monitor unit constraints on plan quality",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate the effect of monitor unit (MU) constraints on the dose distribution created by intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning using single-field optimization (SFO). Methods: Ninety-four energies between 72.5 and 221.8 MeV are available for scanning beam IMPT delivery at our institution. The minimum and maximum MUs for delivering each pencil beam (spot) are 0.005 and 0.04, respectively. These MU constraints are not considered during optimization by the treatment planning system; spots are converted to deliverable MUs during postprocessing. Treatment plans for delivering uniform doses to rectangular volumes with and without MU constraints were generated for different target doses, spot spacings, spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) widths, and ranges in a homogeneous phantom. Four prostate cancer patients were planned with and without MU constraints using different spot spacings. Rounding errors were analyzed using an in-house software tool. Results: From the phantom study, the authors have found that both the number of spots that have rounding errors and the magnitude of the distortion of the dose distribution from the ideally optimized distribution increases as the field dose, spot spacing, and range decrease and as the SOBP width increases. From our study of patient plans, it is clear that as the spot spacing decreases the rounding error increases, and the dose coverage of the target volume becomes unacceptable for very small spot spacings. Conclusions: Constraints on deliverable MU for each spot could create a significant distortion from the ideally optimized dose distributions for IMPT fields using SFO. To eliminate this problem, the treatment planning system should incorporate the MU constraints in the optimization process and the delivery system should reliably delivery smaller minimum MUs.",
keywords = "IMPT, Monitor unit constraints, Single-field optimization, Spot scanning proton therapy, Treatment planning",
author = "Zhu, {X. R.} and N. Sahoo and X. Zhang and D. Robertson and Heng Li and S. Choi and Lee, {A. K.} and Gillin, {M. T.}",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.3314073",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "1210--1219",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning using single-field optimization

T2 - The impact of monitor unit constraints on plan quality

AU - Zhu, X. R.

AU - Sahoo, N.

AU - Zhang, X.

AU - Robertson, D.

AU - Li, Heng

AU - Choi, S.

AU - Lee, A. K.

AU - Gillin, M. T.

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To investigate the effect of monitor unit (MU) constraints on the dose distribution created by intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning using single-field optimization (SFO). Methods: Ninety-four energies between 72.5 and 221.8 MeV are available for scanning beam IMPT delivery at our institution. The minimum and maximum MUs for delivering each pencil beam (spot) are 0.005 and 0.04, respectively. These MU constraints are not considered during optimization by the treatment planning system; spots are converted to deliverable MUs during postprocessing. Treatment plans for delivering uniform doses to rectangular volumes with and without MU constraints were generated for different target doses, spot spacings, spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) widths, and ranges in a homogeneous phantom. Four prostate cancer patients were planned with and without MU constraints using different spot spacings. Rounding errors were analyzed using an in-house software tool. Results: From the phantom study, the authors have found that both the number of spots that have rounding errors and the magnitude of the distortion of the dose distribution from the ideally optimized distribution increases as the field dose, spot spacing, and range decrease and as the SOBP width increases. From our study of patient plans, it is clear that as the spot spacing decreases the rounding error increases, and the dose coverage of the target volume becomes unacceptable for very small spot spacings. Conclusions: Constraints on deliverable MU for each spot could create a significant distortion from the ideally optimized dose distributions for IMPT fields using SFO. To eliminate this problem, the treatment planning system should incorporate the MU constraints in the optimization process and the delivery system should reliably delivery smaller minimum MUs.

AB - Purpose: To investigate the effect of monitor unit (MU) constraints on the dose distribution created by intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning using single-field optimization (SFO). Methods: Ninety-four energies between 72.5 and 221.8 MeV are available for scanning beam IMPT delivery at our institution. The minimum and maximum MUs for delivering each pencil beam (spot) are 0.005 and 0.04, respectively. These MU constraints are not considered during optimization by the treatment planning system; spots are converted to deliverable MUs during postprocessing. Treatment plans for delivering uniform doses to rectangular volumes with and without MU constraints were generated for different target doses, spot spacings, spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) widths, and ranges in a homogeneous phantom. Four prostate cancer patients were planned with and without MU constraints using different spot spacings. Rounding errors were analyzed using an in-house software tool. Results: From the phantom study, the authors have found that both the number of spots that have rounding errors and the magnitude of the distortion of the dose distribution from the ideally optimized distribution increases as the field dose, spot spacing, and range decrease and as the SOBP width increases. From our study of patient plans, it is clear that as the spot spacing decreases the rounding error increases, and the dose coverage of the target volume becomes unacceptable for very small spot spacings. Conclusions: Constraints on deliverable MU for each spot could create a significant distortion from the ideally optimized dose distributions for IMPT fields using SFO. To eliminate this problem, the treatment planning system should incorporate the MU constraints in the optimization process and the delivery system should reliably delivery smaller minimum MUs.

KW - IMPT

KW - Monitor unit constraints

KW - Single-field optimization

KW - Spot scanning proton therapy

KW - Treatment planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77749246650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77749246650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3314073

DO - 10.1118/1.3314073

M3 - Article

C2 - 20384258

AN - SCOPUS:77749246650

VL - 37

SP - 1210

EP - 1219

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 3

ER -