Characterization of passive dosimeters in proton pencil beam scanning - A EURADOS intercomparison for mailed dosimetry audits in proton therapy centres.

The lack of mailed dosimetry audits of proton therapy centres in Europe has encouraged researchers of EURADOS Working Group 9 (WG9) to compare response of several existing passive detector systems in therapeutic pencil beam scanning. Alanine Electron Paramagnetic Resonance dosimetry systems from 3 different institutes (ISS, Italy; UH, Belgium and IFJ PAN, Poland), natLiF:Mg, Ti (MTS-N) and natLiF:Mg, Cu, P (MCP-N) thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), GD-352M radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters (RPLGDs) and Al2O3:C optically stimulated dosimeters (OSLDs) were evaluate. Dosimeter repeatability, batch reproducibility and response in therapeutic Pencil Beam Scanning were verified for implementation as mail auditing system. Alanine detectors demonstrated the lowest linear energy transfer (LET) dependence with an agreement between measured and treatment planning system (TPS) dose below 1%. The OSLDs measured on average a 6.3% lower dose compared to TPS calculation, with no significant difference between varying modulations and ranges. Both GD-352M and MCP-N measured a lower dose than the TPS and luminescent response was dependent on the LET of the therapeutic proton beam. Thermoluminescent response of MTS-N was also found to be dependent on the LET and a higher dose than TPS was measured with the most pronounced increase of 11%. As alanine detectors are characterized by the lowest energy dependence for different parameters of therapeutic pencil beam scanning they are suitable candidates for mail auditing in proton therapy. The response of luminescence detector systems have shown promises even though more careful calibration and corrections are needed for its implementation as part of a mailed dosimetry audit system.

Out-of-field doses for scanning proton radiotherapy of shallowly located paediatric tumours-a comparison of range shifter and 3D printed compensator.

The lowest possible energy of proton scanning beam in cyclotron proton therapy facilities is typically between 60 and 100 MeV. Treatment of superficial lesions requires a pre-absorber to deliver doses to shallower volumes. In most of the cases a range shifter (RS) is used, but as an alternative solution, a patient-specific 3D printed proton beam compensator (BC) can be applied. A BC enables further reduction of the air gap and consequently reduction of beam scattering. Such pre-absorbers are additional sources of secondary radiation. The aim of this work was the comparison of RS and BC with respect to out-of-field doses for a simulated treatment of superficial paediatric brain tumours. EURADOS WG9 performed comparative measurements of scattered radiation in the Proteus C-235 IBA facility (Cyclotron Centre Bronowice at the Institute of Nuclear Physics, CCB IFJ PAN, Kraków, Poland) using two anthropomorphic phantoms-5 and 10 yr old-for a superficial target in the brain. Both active detectors located inside the therapy room, and passive detectors placed inside the phantoms were used. Measurements were supplemented by Monte Carlo simulation of the radiation transport. For the applied 3D printed pre-absorbers, out-of-field doses from both secondary photons and neutrons were lower than for RS. Measurements with active environmental dosimeters at five positions inside the therapy room indicated that the RS/BC ratio of the out-of-field dose was also higher than one, with a maximum of 1.7. Photon dose inside phantoms leads to higher out-of-field doses for RS than BC to almost all organs with the highest RS/BC ratio 12.5 and 13.2 for breasts for 5 and 10 yr old phantoms, respectively. For organs closest to the isocentre such as the thyroid, neutron doses were lower for BC than RS due to neutrons moderation in the target volume, but for more distant organs like bladder-conversely-lower doses for RS than BC were observed. The use of 3D printed BC as the pre-absorber placed in the near vicinity of patient in the treatment of superficial tumours does not result in the increase of secondary radiation compared to the treatment with RS, placed far from the patient.