Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Comparison of Plan Dose Accuracy for Anterior Vs. Lateral Fields in Proton Therapy of Prostate Cancer

no image available
M Moteabbed

M Moteabbed*, A Trofimov , M Testa , G Sharp , Y Wang , H Paganetti , A Zietman , J Efstathiou , H Lu , Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA


SU-E-T-616 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: With the anticipated introduction of in vivo range verification methods, the use of anterior fields for proton therapy of prostate cancer may become an attractive treatment option, and improve upon the dose distributions achievable with conventional lateral-opposed fields. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the planned dose accuracy for lateral versus anterior oblique field arrangements.

Methods: Four patients with low/intermediate risk prostate cancer, participating in a clinical trial at our institution, were selected for this study. All patients were treated using lateral-opposed fields (LAT). The clinical target volume (CTV) received a total dose of 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions. Anterior oblique research plans (ANT) were created using the clinical planning system, and featured beams with ±35-degree gantry angle, 1.2 cm aperture margins, 3-mm range compensator smearing and no range uncertainty margins. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed for both beam arrangements using TOPAS. Dose volume histograms were analyzed and compared for planned and MC dose distributions. Differences between MC and planned DVH parameters were computed as a percentage of the total prescribed dose.

Results: For all patients, CTV dose was systematically lower (~2-2.5%) for MC than the plan. This discrepancy was slightly larger (~0.5%) for LAT compared to ANT plans for all cases. Although the dose differences for bladder and anterior rectal wall remained within 0.7% for all LAT cases, they were slightly larger for ANT plans, especially for case 3 due to larger patient size and MC-plan range difference. The EUD difference for femoral heads was within 0.6% for both LAT and ANT cases.

Conclusion: The dose calculated by the treatment planning system using pencil beam algorithm agrees with MC to within 2.5% and is comparable for lateral and anterior scenarios. The dose agreement in the anterior rectal wall is range- and hence, patient-dependent for ANT treatments.

Contact Email: