Characterization of proton pencil beam scanning and passive beam using a high spatial resolution solid‐state microdosimeter

Tran, Linh T.; Chartier, Lachlan; Bolst, David; Pogossov, Alex; Guatelli, Susanna; Petasecca, Marco; Lerch, Michael L. F; Prokopovich, Dale A.; Reinhard, Mark I.; Clasie, B.; Depauw, Nicolas; Kooy, Hanne M.; Flanz, J.; McNamara, Aimee L.; Paganetti, Harald; Beltran, Chris; Furutani, Keith M.; Perevertaylo, Vladimir; Jackson, Michael; Rosenfeld, Anatoly B.

doi:10.1002/mp.12563

Cited by 55 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This device was used for microdosimetric measurements at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Francis H. Burr Proton Beamy Therapy Center (Tran et al, 2017). In the experiment, the proton energy was 131 MeV with a Gaussian energy spread σ of 0.86% (2.65 MeV FWHM), the pencil beam has a σ of 11 mm (FWHM = 2.3548 × σ = 25.9 mm) in air at isocenter, and a range of the distal 90% of the depth-dose, R 90 , of 124.6 mm was used for measuring lineal energy distributions.…”

Section: Silicon On Insulator (Soi) Microdosimetermentioning

confidence: 99%

The microdosimetric extension in TOPAS: development and comparison with published data

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microdosimetric energy depositions have been suggested as a key variable for the modeling of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in proton and ion radiation therapy. However, microdosimetry has been underutilized in radiation therapy. Recent advances in detector technology allow the design of new mico-and nano-dosimeters. At the same time Monte Carlo simulations have become more widely used in radiation therapy. In order to address the growing interest in the field, a microdosimetric extension was developed in TOPAS. The extension provides users with the functionality to simulate microdosimetric spectra as well as the contribution of secondary particles to the spectra, calculate microdosimetric parameters, and determine RBE with a biological weighting function approach or with the microdosimetric kinetic model. Simulations were conducted with the extension and the results were compared with published experimental data and other simulation results for three types of microdosimeters, a spherical tissue equivalent proportional counter (TEPC), a cylindrical TEPC and a solid state microdosimeter. The corresponding microdosimetric spectra obtained with TOPAS from the plateau region to the distal tail of the Bragg curve generally show good agreement with the published data.

show abstract

Section: Silicon On Insulator (Soi) Microdosimetermentioning

confidence: 99%

The microdosimetric extension in TOPAS: development and comparison with published data

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can affect the uncertainty in RBE 10 derived at the distal part of the SOBP where growth of RBE is very sharp. The measurement requires submillimeter resolution as we reported earlier for passive broad carbon beam delivery by using movable water phantom and MicroPlus probe with submillimeter spatial resolution …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on the RBE estimation for carbon beam scanning irradiation using a solid‐state microdosimeter

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study was to study the field size effect on the estimated Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) for carbon scanning beam irradiation. Methods A silicon‐on‐insulator (SOI) microdosimeter system developed by the Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Australia, was used for lineal‐energy measurements (microdosimetric quantity). The RBE values were derived based on the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM) at different depths in a water phantom in the scanning carbon beam for various scanned areas. Results Our study shows that the difference in RBE values derived from the SOI microdosimeter measurements with the MKM model and from the Treatment Planning System (TPS). The difference of the RBE values is within 6.5 % at the peak point of the spread‐out Bragg Peak (SOBP) region. Compared to the spot‐beam, RBE values obtained in the scanned‐beam with a larger scanned area of 1.0 × 1.0 cm2 have better agreement with which estimated by the TPS. Conclusions This study shows the possibility of using the SOI microdosimeter system as a quality assurance (QA) tool for RBE evaluation in carbon‐pencil beam scanning radiotherapy.

show abstract

“…The BridgeV2 detector was modeled in a similar way to the one described in Ref. 32. The initial proton energy distribution from the Tandem accelerator was 20 MeV with an energy spread of 0.1% FWHM.…”

Section: Fluka MC Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time-of-flight spectrometry of ultra-short, polyenergetic proton bunches

Würl

Englbrecht

Lehrack

et al. 2018

Review of Scientific Instruments

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Characterization of proton pencil beam scanning and passive beam using a high spatial resolution solid‐state microdosimeter

Cited by 55 publications

References 33 publications

The microdosimetric extension in TOPAS: development and comparison with published data

The microdosimetric extension in TOPAS: development and comparison with published data

Study on the RBE estimation for carbon beam scanning irradiation using a solid‐state microdosimeter

Time-of-flight spectrometry of ultra-short, polyenergetic proton bunches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About