Pepin, Mark D

AbstractPurposeTo investigate the dependency of dose‐volume histogram (DVH) behavior and precision on underlying discretization using shapes and dose distributions with known analytical DVHs for five commercial DVH calculators.MethodsDVHs and summary metrics were extracted from all five systems using synthetic cone and cylinder objects for which the true volume and DVH curves were known. Trends in the curves and metrics were explored by varying the underlying voxelization of the CT image, structure set, and dose grid as well by varying the geometry of the structure and direction of a linear dose gradient. Using synthetic structures allowed for comparison with ground truth DVH curves to assess their accuracy while an algorithm was additionally developed to assess the precision of each system. The precision was calculated with a novel algorithm that treats any “stair step” behavior in a DVH curve as an uncertainty band and calculates the width, characterized as a percent difference, of the band for various DVH metrics. The underlying voxelization was additionally changed and DVHs were extracted for two clinical examples. The details of how each system calculated DVHs were also investigated and tendencies in the calculated curves, metrics, and precision were related to choices made in the calculation methodology.ResultsCalculation methodology differences that had a noticeable impact on the DVH curves and summary metrics include supersampling beyond the input grids and interpretation of the superior and inferior ends of the structures. Among the systems studied, the median precision ranged from 0.902% to 3.22%, and interquartile ranges varied from 1.09% to 3.91%.ConclusionsCommercial dose‐evaluation solutions can calculate different DVH curves, structure volume measures, and dose statistics for the same input data due to differences in their calculation methodologies. This study highlights the importance of understanding and investigating the DVH calculation when considering a new clinical system and when using more than one system for data transfer.

PurposeThe presence of respiratory motion during radiation treatment leads to degradation of the expected dose distribution, both for target coverage and healthy tissue sparing, particularly for techniques like pencil beam scanning proton therapy which have dynamic delivery systems. While tools exist to estimate this degraded four‐dimensional (4D) dose, they typically have one or more deficiencies such as not including the particular effects from a dynamic delivery, using analytical dose calculations, and/or using nonphysical dose‐accumulation methods. This work presents a clinically useful 4D‐dose calculator that addresses each of these shortcomings.MethodsTo quickly compute the 4D dose, the three main tasks of the calculator were run on graphics processing units (GPUs). These tasks were (a) simulating the delivery of the plan using measured delivery parameters to distribute the plan amongst 4DCT phases characterizing the patient breathing, (b) using an in‐house Monte Carlo simulation (MC) dose calculator to determine the dose delivered to each breathing phase, and (c) accumulating the doses from the various breathing phases onto a single phase for evaluation. The accumulation was performed by individually transferring the energy and mass of dose‐grid subvoxels, a technique that models the transfer of dose in a more physically realistic manner. The calculator was run on three test cases, with lung, esophagus, and liver targets, respectively, to assess the various uncertainties in the beam delivery simulation as well as to characterize the dose‐accumulation technique.ResultsFour‐dimensional doses were successfully computed for the three test cases with computation times ranging from 4–6 min on a server with eight NVIDIA Titan X graphics cards; the most time‐consuming component was the MC dose engine. The subvoxel‐based dose‐accumulation technique produced stable 4D‐dose distributions at subvoxel scales of 0.5–1.0 mm without impairing the total computation time. The uncertainties in the beam delivery simulation led to moderate variations of the dose–volume histograms for these cases; the variations were reduced by implementing repainting or phase‐gating motion mitigation techniques in the calculator.ConclusionsA MC‐based and GPU‐accelerated 4D‐dose calculator was developed to estimate the effects of respiratory motion on pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments. After future validation, the calculator could be used to assess treatment plans and its quick runtime would make it easily usable in a future 4D‐robust optimization system.