The four LEP collaborations, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, have searched for the neutral Higgs bosons which are predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). The data of the four collaborations are statistically combined and examined for their consistency with the background hypothesis and with a possible Higgs boson signal. The combined LEP data show no significant excess of events which would indicate the production of Higgs bosons. The search results are used to set upper bounds on the cross-sections of various Higgs-like event topologies. The results are interpreted within the MSSM in a number of "benchmark" models, including CP-conserving and CP-violating scenarios. These interpretations lead in all cases to large exclusions in the MSSM parameter space. Absolute limits are set on the parameter tan β and, in some scenarios, on the masses of neutral Higgs bosons.

Purpose: Task Group (TG) 224 was established by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the Radiation Therapy Committee and Work Group on Particle Beams. The group was charged with developing comprehensive quality assurance (QA) guidelines and recommendations for the three commonly employed proton therapy techniques for beam delivery: scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning. This report supplements established QA guidelines for therapy machine performance for other widely used modalities, such as photons and electrons (TG 142, TG 40, TG 24, TG 22, TG 179, and Medical Physics Practice Guideline 2a) and shares their aims of ensuring the safe, accurate, and consistent delivery of radiation therapy dose distributions to patients. Methods: To provide a basis from which machine‐specific QA procedures can be developed, the report first describes the different delivery techniques and highlights the salient components of the related machine hardware. Depending on the particular machine hardware, certain procedures may be more or less important, and each institution should investigate its own situation. Results: In lieu of such investigations, this report identifies common beam parameters that are typically checked, along with the typical frequencies of those checks (daily, weekly, monthly, or annually). The rationale for choosing these checks and their frequencies is briefly described. Short descriptions of suggested tools and procedures for completing some of the periodic QA checks are also presented. Conclusion: Recommended tolerance limits for each of the recommended QA checks are tabulated, and are based on the literature and on consensus data from the clinical proton experience of the task group members. We hope that this and other reports will serve as a reference for clinical physicists wishing either to establish a proton therapy QA program or to evaluate an existing one.

No abstract

Dose calculation for pencil beam scanning proton therapy requires accurate measurement of the broad tails of the proton spot profiles for every nozzle in clinical use. By applying a pair/magnification method and merging film data, 200 mm × 240 mm dose kernels extending to 10(-4) of the central spot dose are generated for six selected energies of the IBA dedicated and universal nozzles (DN and UN). One-dimensional, circular profiles up to 100 mm in radius are generated from the asymmetric profiles to facilitate spot profile comparison. For the highest energy, 225 MeV, the output of both the DN and the UN for field sizes from 40 to 200 mm increases in parallel, slowest at the surface (∼1%) and fastest at a depth of 150 mm (∼9%). In contrast, at the lowest energy, 100 MeV, the output of the DN across the same range of field sizes increases 3-4% versus 6-7% for the UN throughout all the depths. The charge deficits in the measured depth-dose of Bragg peaks are similar between the UN and the DN. At 100 MeV, the field size factor difference at the surface between two orientations of a rectangular 40 mm × 200 mm field is 1.4% at isocentre for the DN versus 2% for the UN. Though the one-dimensional distributions are similar for the primary and tail components at different positions, the primary components of the DN spots are more elliptical 270 mm upstream than at isocentre.

A major source of uncertainty in proton therapy is the conversion of Hounsfield unit (HU) to proton stopping power ratio relative to water (SPR). In this study, we measured and quantified the accuracy of a stoichiometric dual energy CT (DECT) SPR calibration. We applied a stoichiometric DECT calibration method to derive the SPR using CT images acquired sequentially at [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. The dual energy index was derived based on the HUs of the paired spectral images and used to calculate the effective atomic number (Z ), relative electron density ([Formula: see text]), and SPRs of phantom and biological materials. Two methods were used to verify the derived SPRs. The first method measured the sample's water equivalent thicknesses to deduce the SPRs using a multi-layer ion chamber (MLIC) device. The second method utilized Gafchromic EBT3 film to directly compare relative ranges between sample and water after proton pencil beam irradiation. Ex vivo validation was performed using five different types of frozen animal tissues with the MLIC and three types of fresh animal tissues using film. In addition, the residual ranges recorded on the film were used to compare with those from the treatment planning system using both DECT and SECT derived SPRs. Bland-Altman analysis indicates that the differences between DECT and SPR measurement of tissue surrogates, frozen and fresh animal tissues has a mean of 0.07% and standard deviation of 0.58% compared to 0.55% and 1.94% respectively for single energy CT (SECT) and SPR measurement. Our ex vivo study indicates that the stoichiometric DECT SPR calibration method has the potential to be more accurate than SECT calibration under ideal conditions although beam hardening effects and other image artifacts may increase this uncertainty.