This study quantifies the dosimetric accuracy of a commercial treatment planning system as functions of treatment depth, air gap, and range shifter thickness for superficial pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments. The RayStation 6 pencil beam and Monte Carlo dose engines were each used to calculate the dose distributions for a single treatment plan with varying range shifter air gaps. Central axis dose values extracted from each of the calculated plans were compared to dose values measured with a calibrated PTW Markus chamber at various depths in RW3 solid water. Dose was measured at 12 depths, ranging from the surface to 5 cm, for each of the 18 different air gaps, which ranged from 0.5 to 28 cm. TPS dosimetric accuracy, defined as the ratio of calculated dose relative to the measured dose, was plotted as functions of depth and air gap for the pencil beam and Monte Carlo dose algorithms. The accuracy of the TPS pencil beam dose algorithm was found to be clinically unacceptable at depths shallower than 3 cm with air gaps wider than 10 cm, and increased range shifter thickness only added to the dosimetric inaccuracy of the pencil beam algorithm. Each configuration calculated with Monte Carlo was determined to be clinically acceptable. Further comparisons of the Monte Carlo dose algorithm to the measured spread‐out Bragg Peaks of multiple fields used during machine commissioning verified the dosimetric accuracy of Monte Carlo in a variety of beam energies and field sizes. Discrepancies between measured and TPS calculated dose values can mainly be attributed to the ability (or lack thereof) of the TPS pencil beam dose algorithm to properly model secondary proton scatter generated in the range shifter.
Purpose: Treatment planning systems (TPS) may not accurately model superficial dose distributions of range shifted proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatments. Numerous patient‐specific QA tests performed on superficially treated PBS plans have shown a consistent overestimate of dose by the TPS. This study quantifies variations between TPS planned dose and measured dose as a function of range shifter air gap and treatment depths up to 5 cm. Methods: PBS treatment plans were created in the TPS to uniformly irradiate a volume of solid water. One plan was created for each range shifter position analyzed, and all plans utilized identical dose optimization parameters. Each optimized plan was analyzed in the TPS to determine the planned dose at varying depths. A PBS proton therapy system with a 3.5 cm lucite range shifter delivered the treatment plans, and a parallel plate chamber embedded in RW3 solid water measured dose at shallow depths for each air gap. Differences between measured and planned doses were plotted and analyzed. Results: The data show that the TPS more accurately models superficial dose as the air gap between the range shifter and patient surface decreases. Air gaps less than 10 cm have an average dose difference of only 1.6%, whereas air gaps between 10 and 20 cm differ by 3.0% and gaps greater than 20 cm differ by 4.4%. Conclusion: This study has shown that the TPS is unable to accurately model superficial dose with a large range shifter air gap. Dose differences greater than 3% will likely cause QA failure, as many institutions analyze patient QA with a 3%/3mm gamma analysis. For superficial PBS therapy, range shifter positions should be chosen to keep the air gap less then 10 cm when patient setup and gantry geometry allow.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.