% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Sheng:362179,
      author       = {Sheng, Yinxiangzi and Volz, Lennart and Wang, Weiwei and
                      Durante, Marco and Graeff, Christian},
      title        = {{E}valuation of proton and carbon ion beam models in
                      {TR}eatment {P}lanning for {P}articles 4{D} ({TR}i{P}4{D})
                      referring to a commercial treatment planning system},
      journal      = {Zeitschrift für medizinische Physik},
      volume       = {35},
      number       = {2},
      issn         = {0939-3889},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {GSI-2025-01078},
      pages        = {218 - 226},
      year         = {2025},
      note         = {This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
                      license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)},
      abstract     = {To investigate the accuracy of the treatment planning
                      system (TPS) TRiP4D in reproducing doses computed by the
                      clinically used TPS SyngoRT.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 (ΔDmean,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.The carbon and
                      proton absorbed dose gamma passing rates (γ-PRs) were
                      $≥99.93\%$ and ΔDmean,T smaller than $-0.22\%.$ On
                      average, the RBE-weighted dose Dmean,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 ΔDmean, 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. ΔDmean,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
                      $64.19\%).The$ 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).},
      keywords     = {Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted: methods / Proton
                      Therapy: methods / Humans / Radiotherapy Dosage / Heavy Ion
                      Radiotherapy: methods / Phantoms, Imaging / Carbon /
                      dosimetric comparison (Other) / particle radiotherapy
                      (Other) / treatment planning (Other) / Carbon (NLM
                      Chemicals)},
      cin          = {BIO},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Ds200)BIO-20160831OR354},
      pnm          = {633 - Life Sciences – Building Blocks of Life: Structure
                      and Function (POF4-633) / HITRIplus - Heavy Ion Therapy
                      Research Integration plus (101008548) / SUC-GSI-Darmstadt -
                      Strategic university cooperation GSI-TU Darmstadt
                      (SUC-GSI-DA)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-633 / G:(EU-Grant)101008548 /
                      G:(DE-Ds200)SUC-GSI-DA},
      experiment   = {$EXP:(DE-Ds200)no_experiment-20200803$},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:37455229},
      UT           = {WOS:001504537000010},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.06.002},
      url          = {https://repository.gsi.de/record/362179},
}