Treatment planning and verification of proton therapy using spot scanning: Initial experiences

Monte Carlo (MC)‐based dose calculations are generally superior to analytical dose calculations (ADC) in modeling the dose distribution for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatments. The purpose of this paper is to present a methodology for commissioning and validating an accurate MC code for PBS utilizing a parameterized source model, including an implementation of a range shifter, that can independently check the ADC in commercial treatment planning system (TPS) and fast Monte Carlo dose calculation in opensource platform (MCsquare). The source model parameters (including beam size, angular divergence and energy spread) and protons per MU were extracted and tuned at the nozzle exit by comparing Tool for Particle Simulation (TOPAS) simulations with a series of commissioning measurements using scintillation screen/CCD camera detector and ionization chambers. The range shifter was simulated as an independent object with geometric and material information. The MC calculation platform was validated through comprehensive measurements of single spots, field size factors (FSF) and three‐dimensional dose distributions of spread‐out Bragg peaks (SOBPs), both without and with the range shifter. Differences in field size factors and absolute output at various depths of SOBPs between measurement and simulation were within 2.2%, with and without a range shifter, indicating an accurate source model. TOPAS was also validated against anthropomorphic lung phantom measurements. Comparison of dose distributions and DVHs for representative liver and lung cases between independent MC and analytical dose calculations from a commercial TPS further highlights the limitations of the ADC in situations of highly heterogeneous geometries. The fast MC platform has been implemented within our clinical practice to provide additional independent dose validation/QA of the commercial ADC for patient plans. Using the independent MC, we can more efficiently commission ADC by reducing the amount of measured data required for low dose “halo” modeling, especially when a range shifter is employed.

σ_{x} false(0 false), ρ_{x} false(0 false) a n d σ_{x θ} false(0 false)

were derived by fitting the spot size to location Z with Eq.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation and clinical implementation of an accurate Monte Carlo code for pencil beam scanning proton therapy

Huang

Kang

Souris

et al. 2018

“…Planning adhered to recommendations of ICRU Report 78; notably, beamlines where a sensitive structure lay immediately distal to the target and beam angles of incidence that may have led to uncertainties in beam range due to possible misalignment were avoided (23) . Plans were limited to four fields or fewer, in keeping with the clinical practices of proton therapy reference institutions (24) . The modulated scanning proton beam mode with a range shifter allowing for nominal energies ranging from 68–250 MeV and the proton convolution superposition algorithm (v.8.08.9) were used for dose calculation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Late radiation toxicity in Hodgkin lymphoma patients: proton therapy's potential

Toltz

Shin

Mitrou

et al. 2015

In 2010, all young patients treated for intrathoracic Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) at one of 10 radiotherapy centers in the province of Quebec received 3D conformal photon therapy. These patients may now be at risk for late effects of their treatment, notably secondary malignancies and cardiac toxicity. We hypothesized that more complex radiotherapy, including intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and possibly IMRT (in the form of helical tomotherapy (HT)), could benefit these patients. With institutional review board approval at 10 institutions, all treatment plans for patients under the age of 30 treated for HL during a six‐month consecutive period of 2010 were retrieved. Twenty‐six patients were identified, and after excluding patients with extrathoracic radiation or treatment of recurrence, 20 patients were replanned for HT and IMPT. Neutron dose for IMPT plans was estimated from published measurements. The relative seriality model was used to predict excess risk of cardiac mortality. A modified linear quadratic model was used to predict the excess absolute risk for induction of lung cancer and, in female patients, breast cancer. Model parameters were derived from published data. Predicted risk for cardiac mortality was similar among the three treatment techniques (absolute excess risk of cardiac mortality was not reduced for HT or IMPT (p>0.05,p>0.05) as compared to 3D CRT). Predicted risks were increased for HT and reduced for IMPT for secondary lung cancer (p<0.001,p<0.001) and breast cancers (p<0.001,p<0.001) as compared to 3D CRT.PACS numbers: 87.55.dh, 87.55.dk

“…For protons, however, with a typical distal falloff of Bragg peaks of approximately

8 % - 10 % per mm

, the calculated and measured dose distributions at the distal end of Bragg peaks are significantly more sensitive to accuracy of the interpolation and uncertainty in the water‐equivalent thickness of the phantom. Earlier studies of patient‐specific proton modulated beam QA focused on using 2D algorithm to evaluate dose distributions in the middle of the beam's modulation 16 , 17 . Here, we have extended the gamma analysis to 3D Euclidean space and dose difference to effectively determine the agreement in dose distributions for proton fields.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three‐dimensional gamma criterion for patient‐specific quality assurance of spot scanning proton beams

Chang

Poole

Teran

et al. 2015

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of full three‐dimensional (3D) gamma algorithm for spot scanning proton fields, also referred to as pencil beam scanning (PBS) fields. The difference between the full 3D gamma algorithm and a simplified two‐dimensional (2D) version was presented. Both 3D and 2D gamma algorithms are used for dose evaluations of clinical proton PBS fields. The 3D gamma algorithm was implemented in an in‐house software program without resorting to 2D interpolations perpendicular to the proton beams at the depths of measurement. Comparison between calculated and measured dose points was carried out directly using Euclidian distance in 3D space and the dose difference as a fourth dimension. Note that this 3D algorithm faithfully implemented the original concept proposed by Low et al. (1998) who described gamma criterion using 3D Euclidian distance and dose difference. Patient‐specific proton PBS plans are separated into two categories, depending on their optimization method: single‐field optimization (SFO) or multifield optimized (MFO). A total of 195 measurements were performed for 58 SFO proton fields. A MFO proton plan with four fields was also calculated and measured, although not used for treatment. Typically three different depths were selected from each field for measurements. Each measurement was analyzed by both 3D and 2D gamma algorithms. The resultant 3D and 2D gamma passing rates are then compared and analyzed. Comparison between 3D and 2D gamma passing rates of SFO fields showed that 3D algorithm does show higher passing rates than its 2D counterpart toward the distal end, while little difference is observed at depths away from the distal end. Similar phenomenon in the lateral penumbra was well documented in photon radiation therapy, and in fact brought about the concept of gamma criterion. Although 2D gamma algorithm has been shown to suffice in addressing dose comparisons in lateral penumbra for photon intensity‐modulation radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, results here showed that a full 3D algorithm is required for proton dose comparisons due to the existence of Bragg peaks and distal penumbra. A MFO proton plan with four fields was also measured and analyzed. Sharp dose gradients exist in MFO proton fields, both in the middle of the modulation and toward the most distal layers. Decreased 2D gamma passing rates at locations of high dose gradient are again observed as in the SFO fields. Results confirmed that a full 3D algorithm for gamma criterion is needed for proton PBS plan's dose comparisons. The 3D gamma algorithm is implemented by an in‐house software program. Patient‐specific proton PBS plans are measured and analyzed using both 3D and 2D gamma algorithms. For measurements performed at depths with large dose gradients along the beam direction, gamma comparison passing rates using 2D algorithm is lower than those obtained with the full 3D algorithm.PACS number: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Jw, 87.55.de, 87.55.kd, 87.55.ne, 87.55.Qr