On the nuclear halo of a proton pencil beam stopping in water.

The dose distribution of a proton beam stopping in water has components due to basic physics and may have others from beam contamination. We propose the concise terms core for the primary beam, halo (see Pedroni et al 2005 Phys. Med. Biol. 50 541-61) for the low dose region from charged secondaries, aura for the low dose region from neutrals, and spray for beam contamination. We have measured the dose distribution in a water tank at 177 MeV under conditions where spray, therefore radial asymmetry, is negligible. We used an ADCL calibrated thimble chamber and a Faraday cup calibrated integral beam monitor so as to obtain immediately the absolute dose per proton. We took depth scans at fixed distances from the beam centroid rather than radial scans at fixed depths. That minimizes the signal range for each scan and better reveals the structure of the core and halo. Transitions from core to halo to aura are already discernible in the raw data. The halo has components attributable to coherent and incoherent nuclear reactions. Due to elastic and inelastic scattering by the nuclear force, the Bragg peak persists to radii larger than can be accounted for by Molière single scattering. The radius of the incoherent component, a dose bump around midrange, agrees with the kinematics of knockout reactions. We have fitted the data in two ways. The first is algebraic or model dependent (MD) as far as possible, and has 25 parameters. The second, using 2D cubic spline regression, is model independent. Optimal parameterization for treatment planning will probably be a hybrid of the two, and will of course require measurements at several incident energies. The MD fit to the core term resembles that of the PSI group (Pedroni et al 2005), which has been widely emulated. However, we replace their T(w), a mass stopping power which mixes electromagnetic (EM) and nuclear effects, with one that is purely EM, arguing that protons that do not undergo hard single scatters continue to lose energy according to the Beth-Bloch formula. If that is correct, it is no longer necessary to measure T(w), and the dominant role played by the 'Bragg peak chamber' vanishes. For mathematical and other details we will refer to Gottschalk et al (2014, arXiv: 1409.1938v1), a long technical report of this project.

Validation of an in-vivo proton beam range check method in an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom using dose measurements.

PURPOSE: In-vivo dosimetry and beam range verification in proton therapy could play significant role in proton treatment validation and improvements. In-vivo beam range verification, in particular, could enable new treatment techniques one of which could be the use of anterior fields for prostate treatment instead of opposed lateral fields as in current practice. This paper reports validation study of an in-vivo range verification method which can reduce the range uncertainty to submillimeter levels and potentially allow for in-vivo dosimetry. METHODS: An anthropomorphic pelvic phantom is used to validate the clinical potential of the time-resolved dose method for range verification in the case of prostrate treatment using range modulated anterior proton beams. The method uses a 3 × 4 matrix of 1 mm diodes mounted in water balloon which are read by an ADC system at 100 kHz. The method is first validated against beam range measurements by dose extinction measurements. The validation is first completed in water phantom and then in pelvic phantom for both open field and treatment field configurations. Later, the beam range results are compared with the water equivalent path length (WEPL) values computed from the treatment planning system XIO. RESULTS: Beam range measurements from both time-resolved dose method and the dose extinction method agree with submillimeter precision in water phantom. For the pelvic phantom, when discarding two of the diodes that show sign of significant range mixing, the two methods agree with ±1 mm. Only a dose of 7 mGy is sufficient to achieve this result. The comparison to the computed WEPL by the treatment planning system (XIO) shows that XIO underestimates the protons beam range. Quantifying the exact XIO range underestimation depends on the strategy used to evaluate the WEPL results. To our best evaluation, XIO underestimates the treatment beam range between a minimum of 1.7% and maximum of 4.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Time-resolved dose measurement method satisfies the two basic requirements, WEPL accuracy and minimum dose, necessary for clinical use, thus, its potential for in-vivo protons range verification. Further development is needed, namely, devising a workflow that takes into account the limits imposed by proton range mixing and the susceptibility of the comparison of measured and expected WEPLs to errors on the detector positions. The methods may also be used for in-vivo dosimetry and could benefit various proton therapy treatments.