Commissioning and initial experience with the first clinical gantry‐mounted proton therapy system

Self Cite

Purpose This study aimed to present guidance on the correlation between treatment nozzle and proton source parameters, and dose distribution of a passive double scattering compact proton therapy unit, known as Mevion S250. Methods All 24 beam options were modeled using the MCNPX MC code. The calculated physical dose for pristine peak, profiles, and spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) were benchmarked with the measured data. Track‐averaged LET (LETt) and dose‐averaged LET (LETd) distributions were also calculated. For the sensitivity investigations, proton beam line parameters including Average Energy (AE), Energy Spread (ES), Spot Size (SS), Beam Angle (BA), Beam Offset (OA), and Second scatter Offset (SO) from central Axis, and also First Scatter (FS) thickness were simulated in different stages to obtain the uncertainty of the derived results on the physical dose and LET distribution in a water phantom. Results For the physical dose distribution, the MCNPX MC model matched measurements data for all the options to within 2 mm and 2% criterion. The Mevion S250 was found to have a LETt between 0.46 and 8.76 keV.μm–1 and a corresponding LETd between 0.84 and 15.91 keV.μm–1. For all the options, the AE and ES had the greatest effect on the resulting depth of pristine peak and peak‐to‐plateau ratio respectively. BA, OA, and SO significantly decreased the flatness and symmetry of the profiles. The LETs were found to be sensitive to the AE, ES, and SS, especially in the peak region. Conclusions This study revealed the importance of considering detailed beam parameters, and identifying those that resulted in large effects on the physical dose distribution and LETs for a compact proton therapy machine.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sensitivity analysis of Monte Carlo model of a gantry‐mounted passively scattered proton system

Baradaran‐Ghahfarokhi

Reynoso

Prusator

et al. 2020

Self Cite

TOPAS Simulation of the Mevion S250 compact proton therapy unit

Prusator

Ahmad

Chen

2017

As proton therapy becomes increasingly popular, so does the need for Monte Carlo simulation studies involving accurate beam line modeling of proton treatment units. In this study, the 24 beam configurations of the Mevion S250 proton therapy system installed recently at our institution were modeled using the TOolkit for PArticle Simulation (TOPAS) code. Pristine Bragg peak, spread out Bragg peak (SOBP), and lateral beam profile dose distributions were simulated and matched to the measurements taken during commissioning of the unit. Differences in the range for all Percent Depth Dose (PDD) curves between measured and simulated data agreed to within 0.1 cm. For SOBP scans, the SOBP widths all agreed to within 0.3 cm. With regards to lateral beam profile comparisons between the measured and simulated data, the penumbras differed by less than 1 mm and the flatness differed by less than 1% in nearly all cases. This study shows that Monte Carlo simulation studies involving the Mevion S250 proton therapy unit can be a viable tool in commissioning and verification of the proton treatment planning system.

Comparability of three output prediction models for a compact passively double‐scattered proton therapy system

Ferguson

Chen

Ferreira

et al. 2017

The purpose of this study was to investigate comparability of three output prediction models for a compact double‐scattered proton therapy system. Two published output prediction models are commissioned for our Mevion S250 proton therapy system. Model A is a correction‐based model (Sahoo et al., Med Phys, 2008;35(11):5088–5097) and model B is an analytical model which employs a function of r = (R’‐M’)/M’ (Kooy et al., Phys Med Biol, 2005;50:5487–5456) where R’ is defined as depth of distal 100% dose with straggling and M’ is the width between distal 100% dose and proximal 100% dose with straggling instead of the theoretical definition due to more accurate output prediction. The r is converted to ((R‐0.31)‐0.81 × M)/(0.81 × M) with the vendor definition of R (distal 90% dose) and M (distal 90% dose‐to‐proximal 95% dose), where R’ = R‐0.31 (g cm−2) and M’ = 0.81 × M (g cm−2). In addition, a quartic polynomial fit model (model C) mathematically converted from model B is studied. The outputs of 272 sets of R and M covering the 24 double scattering options are measured. Each model's predicted output is compared to the measured output. For the total dataset, the percent difference between predicted (P) and measured (M) outputs ((P‐M)/M × 100%) were within ±3% using the three different models. The average differences (±standard deviation) were −0.13 ± 0.94%, −0.13 ± 1.20%, and −0.22 ± 1.11% for models A, B, and C, respectively. The p‐values of the t‐test were 0.912 (model A vs. B), 0.061 (model A vs. C), and 0.136 (model B vs. C). For all the options, all three models have clinically acceptable predictions. The differences between models A, B, and C are statistically insignificant; however, model A generally has the potential to more accurately predict the output if a larger dataset for commissioning is used. It is concluded that the models can be comparably used for the compact proton therapy system.