Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., Araujo, H., Arce, P., Asai, M., Axen, D., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Behnerl, F., Bellagamba, L., Boudreau, J., Broglia, L., Brunengo, A., Burkhardt, H., Chauvie, S., Chuma, J., Chytracek, R., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., Degtyarenko, P., Dell’Aqua, A., Depaola, G., Dietrich, D., Enami, R., Feliciello, A., Ferguson, C., Fesefeldt, H., Folger, G., Foppiano, F., Forti, A., Garelli, S., Giani, S., Giannitrapani, R., Gibin, D., Cadenas, J.J.G., Gonzalez, I., Abril, G.G., Greeniaus, G., Greiner, W., Grichine, V., Grossheim, A., Guatelli, S., Gumplinger, P., Hamatsu, R., Hashimoto, K., Hasui, H., Heikkinen, A., Howard, A., Ivanchenko, V., Johnson, A., Jones, F.W., Kallenbach, J., Kanaya, N., Kawabata, M., Kawabata, Y., Kawaguti, M., Kelner, S., Kent, P., Kimura, A., Kodama, T., Kokoulin, R., Kossov, M., Kurashige, H., Lamanna, E., Lampen, T., Lara, V., Lefebure, V., Lei, F., Liendl, M., Lockman, W., Longo, F., Magni, S., Maire, M., Medernach, E., Minamimoto, K., Freitas, P.M.D., Morita, Y., Murakami, K., Nagamatu, M., Nartallo, R., Nieminen, P., Nishimura, T., Ohtsubo, K., Okamura, M., O’Neale, S., Oohata, Y., Paech, K., Perl, J., Pfeiffer, A., Pia, M.G., Ranjard, F., Rybin, A., Sadilova, S.A., Salvo, E.D., Santin, G., Sasaki, T., Savvas, N., Sawada, Y., Scherer, S., Sei, S., Sirotenko, V., Smith, D., Starkov, N., Stoecker, H., Sulkimo, J., Takahata, M., Tanaka, S., Tcherniaev, E., Tehrani, E.S., Tropeano, M., Truscott, P., Uno, H., Urban, L., Urban, P., Verderi, M., Walkden, A., Wander, W., Weber, H., Wellisch, J.P., Wenaus, T., Williams, D.C., Wright, D., Yamada, T., Yoshida, H. and Zschiesche, D. (2003) GEANT4—A Simulation Toolkit. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 506, 250-303.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Dose Comparison between Eclipse Dose Calculation and Fast Dose Calculator in Single- and Multi-Field Optimization Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Plans with Various Multi-Beams for Brain Cancer

  AUTHORS: Ryosuke Kohno, Wenhua Cao, Pablo Yepes, Xuemin Bai, Falk Poenisch, David R. Grosshans, Tetsuo Akimoto, Radhe Mohan

  KEYWORDS: Fast Dose Calculator, Monte Carlo, Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy, Single-Field Optimization (SFO), Multi-Field Optimization (MFO)

  JOURNAL NAME: International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, Vol.6 No.4, November 23, 2017

  ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to grasp current potential problems of dose error in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. We were interested in dose differences of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and the fast dose calculation method (FDC) for single-field optimization (SFO) and multi-field optimization (MFO) IMPT plans. In addition, because some authors have reported dosimetric benefit of a proton arc therapy with ultimate multi-fields in recent years, we wanted to evaluate how the number of fields and beam angles affect the differences for IMPT plans. Therefore, for one brain cancer patient with a large heterogeneity, SFO and MFO IMPT plans with various multi-angle beams were planned by the TPS. Dose distributions for each IMPT plan were calculated by both the TPS’s conventional pencil beam algorithm and the FDC. The dosimetric parameters were compared between the two algorithms. The TPS overestimated 400 - 500 cGy (RBE) for minimum dose to the CTV relative to the dose calculated by the FDC. These differences indicate clinically relevant effect on clinical results. In addition, we observed that the maximum difference in dose calculated between the TPS and the FDC was about 900 cGy (RBE) for the right optic nerve, and this quantity also has a possibility to have a clinical effect. The major difference was not seen in calculations for SFO IMPT planning and those for MFO IMPT planning. Differences between the TPS and the FDC in SFO and MFO IMPT plans depend strongly on beam arrangement and the presence of a heterogeneous body. We advocate use of a Monte Carlo method in proton treatment planning to deliver the most precise proton dose in IMPT.