Pencil beam scanning dose calibration at reduced source-to-axis distance.

BACKGROUND: Pencil beam scanning (PBS) monitoring chambers use an ionization control signal, monitor units (MUs), or gigaprotons (Gp) to irradiate a pencil beam and normalize dose calculations. The nozzle deflects the beam from the nozzle axis by an angle subtended at the source-to-axis distance (τ) from the isocenter. If the angle is not correctly considered in calibrations or calculations, it can lead to systematic errors. PURPOSE: Aspects to consider for machines of various τs are fourfold. First, for the machine, there is a pathlength change of proton tracks in the monitor chamber. Second, for measurements, a uniform-square irradiation over a plane, with constant Gp per spot, does not deliver uniform dose in a measurement plane. Third, for Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, Gp (and not MU) is proportional to simulating a number of protons. Fourth, for pencil beam algorithms (PBA), MU or Gp may be used for pencil beam weight, but usage needs to be consistent. Another consideration is the beam shape change from circular to oval in the projection onto voxels. METHODS: Coordinate systems for PBS delivery are described. RESULTS: Users of intermediate-τ machines, corresponding to the onset of 1% pathlength corrections within the scanned field size, must not assume that MUs are proportional to the number of particles in MC simulations, and the PBA may need pathlength corrections. For a field size of 24 × 24 cm2 , intermediate-τ machines correspond to 59 cm ≤ τ < 120 cm. For a field size of 40 × 40 cm2 , intermediate-τ machines correspond to 98 cm ≤ τ < 200 cm. Small-τ machines correspond to τ < 59 and 98 cm at these field sizes, respectively, which require corrections in projecting the beam shape onto voxels. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying corrections due to the pencil beam angle and their onset are important for reducing the outer diameter of proton therapy gantries. The use of Gp (or the number of protons) meterset standardizes data interchange and helps to reduce systematic errors due to the angle of the beam.

DICOM-RT Ion interface to utilize MC simulations in routine clinical workflow for proton pencil beam radiotherapy.

To adopt Monte Carlo (MC) simulations as an independent dose calculation method for proton pencil beam radiotherapy, an interface that converts the plan information in DICOM format into MC components such as geometries and beam source is a crucial element. For this purpose, a DICOM-RT Ion interface (https://github.com/topasmc/dicom-interface) has been developed and integrated into the TOPAS MC code to perform such conversions on-the-fly. DICOM-RT objects utilized in this interface include Ion Plan (RTIP), Ion Beams Treatment Record (RTIBTR), CT image, and Dose. Beamline geometries, gantry and patient coordinate systems, and fluence maps are determined from RTIP and/or RTIBTR. In this interface, DICOM information is processed and delivered to a MC engine in two steps. A MC model, which consists of beamline geometries and beam source, to represent a treatment machine is created by a DICOM parser of the interface. The complexities from different DICOM types, various beamline configurations and source models are handled in this step. Next, geometry information and beam source are transferred to TOPAS on-the-fly via the developed TOPAS extensions. This interface with two treatment machines was successfully deployed into our automated MC workflow which provides simulated dose and LET distributions in a patient or a water phantom automatically when a new plan is identified. The developed interface provides novel features such as handling multiple treatment systems based on different DICOM types, DICOM conversions on-the-fly, and flexible sampling methods that significantly reduce the burden of handling DICOM based plan or treatment record information for MC simulations.

Interpolation of tabulated proton Bragg peaks.

Treatment planning databases for pencil beam scanning can be large, difficult to manage and problematic for quality assurance when they contain tabulated Bragg peaks at small range resolution. Smaller range resolution, in the absence of an accurate interpolation method, improves the accuracy in dose calculations. In this work, we derive an approximate scaling function to interpolate between tabulated Bragg peaks, and determine the accuracy of this interpolation technique and the minimum number of tabulated peaks in a treatment planning database. With the new interpolation technique, three tabulated mono-energetic Bragg peaks (N = 3) are a suitable lower limit for N to achieve interpolation accuracy better than ±1% of the maximum dose in pristine and spread out Bragg peaks for ranges between 6.8 and 32.1 cm of water.

Monte Carlo study of the potential reduction in out-of-field dose using a patient-specific aperture in pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

This study is aimed at identifying the potential benefits of using a patient-specific aperture in proton beam scanning. For this purpose, an accurate Monte Carlo model of the pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT) treatment head at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) was developed based on an existing model of the passive double-scattering (DS) system. The Monte Carlo code specifies the treatment head at MGH with sub-millimeter accuracy. The code was configured based on the results of experimental measurements performed at MGH. This model was then used to compare out-of-field doses in simulated DS treatments and PBS treatments. For the conditions explored, the penumbra in PBS is wider than in DS, leading to higher absorbed doses and equivalent doses adjacent to the primary field edge. For lateral distances greater than 10 cm from the field edge, the doses in PBS appear to be lower than those observed for DS. We found that placing a patient-specific aperture at nozzle exit during PBS treatments can potentially reduce doses lateral to the primary radiation field by over an order of magnitude. In conclusion, using a patient-specific aperture has the potential to further improve the normal tissue sparing capabilities of PBS.

Golden beam data for proton pencil-beam scanning.

Proton, as well as other ion, beams applied by electro-magnetic deflection in pencil-beam scanning (PBS) are minimally perturbed and thus can be quantified a priori by their fundamental interactions in a medium. This a priori quantification permits an optimal reduction of characterizing measurements on a particular PBS delivery system. The combination of a priori quantification and measurements will then suffice to fully describe the physical interactions necessary for treatment planning purposes. We consider, for proton beams, these interactions and derive a 'Golden' beam data set. The Golden beam data set quantifies the pristine Bragg peak depth-dose distribution in terms of primary, multiple Coulomb scatter, and secondary, nuclear scatter, components. The set reduces the required measurements on a PBS delivery system to the measurement of energy spread and initial phase space as a function of energy. The depth doses are described in absolute units of Gy(RBE) mm² Gp⁻¹, where Gp equals 109 (giga) protons, thus providing a direct mapping from treatment planning parameters to integrated beam current. We used these Golden beam data on our PBS delivery systems and demonstrated that they yield absolute dosimetry well within clinical tolerance.

Should positive phase III clinical trial data be required before proton beam therapy is more widely adopted? No.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the rationale for the proposals that prior to a wider use of proton radiation therapy there must be supporting data from phase III clinical trials. That is, would less dose to normal tissues be an advantage to the patient? METHODS: Assess the basis for the assertion that proton dose distributions are superior to those of photons for most situations. Consider the requirements for determining the risks of normal tissue injury, acute and remote, in the examination of the data from a trial. Analyze the probable cost differential between high technology photon and proton therapy. Evaluate the rationale for phase III clinical trials of proton vs photon radiation therapy when the only difference in dose delivered is a difference in distribution of low LET radiation. RESULTS: The distributions of biological effective dose by protons are superior to those by X-rays for most clinical situations, viz. for a defined dose and dose distribution to the target by protons there is a lower dose to non-target tissues. This superiority is due to these physical properties of protons: (1) protons have a finite range and that range is exclusively dependent on the initial energy and the density distribution along the beam path; (2) the Bragg peak; (3) the proton energy distribution may be designed to provide a spread out Bragg peak that yields a uniform dose across the target volume and virtually zero dose deep to the target. Importantly, proton and photon treatment plans can employ beams in the same number and directions (coplanar, non-co-planar), utilize intensity modulation and employ 4D image guided techniques. Thus, the only difference between protons and photons is the distribution of biologically effective dose and this difference can be readily evaluated and quantified. Additionally, this dose distribution advantage should increase the tolerance of certain chemotherapeutic agents and thus permit higher drug doses. The cost of service (not developmental) proton therapy performed in 3-5 gantry centers operating 14-16 h/day and 6 days/week is likely to be equal to or less than twice that of high technology X-ray therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy provides superior distributions of low LET radiation dose relative to that by photon therapy for treatment of a large proportion of tumor/normal tissue situations. Our assessment is that there is no medical rationale for clinical trials of protons as they deliver lower biologically effective doses to non-target tissue than do photons for a specified dose and dose distribution to the target. Based on present knowledge, there will be some gain for patients treated by proton beam techniques. This is so even though quantitation of the clinical gain is less secure than the quantitation of reduction in physical dose. Were proton therapy less expensive than X-ray therapy, there would be no interest in conducting phase III trails. The talent, effort and funds required to conduct phase III clinical trials of protons vs photons would surely be more productive in the advancement of radiation oncology if employed to investigate real problems, e.g. the most effective total dose, dose fractionation, definition of CTV and GTV, means for reduction of PTV and the gains and risks of combined modality therapy.