Harmonization of proton treatment planning for head and neck cancer using pencil beam scanning: first report of the IPACS collaboration group.

Background and purpose: A collaborative network between proton therapy (PT) centres in Trento in Italy, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic and Sweden (IPACS) was founded to implement trials and harmonize PT. This is the first report of IPACS with the aim to show the level of harmonization that can be achieved for proton therapy planning of head and neck (sino-nasal) cancer.Methods: CT-data sets of five patients were included. During several face-to-face and online meetings, a common treatment planning protocol was developed. Each centre used its own treatment planning system (TPS) and planning approach with some restrictions specified in the treatment planning protocol. In addition, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photon plans were created.Results: For CTV1, the average Dmedian was 59.3 ± 2.4 Gy(RBE) for protons and 58.8 ± 2.0 Gy(RBE) for VMAT (aim was 56 Gy(RBE)). For CTV2, the average Dmedian was 71.2 ± 1.0 Gy(RBE) for protons and 70.6 ± 0.4 Gy(RBE) for VMAT (aim was 70 Gy(RBE)). The average D2% for the spinal cord was 25.1 ± 8.5 Gy(RBE) for protons and 47.6 ± 1.4 Gy(RBE) for VMAT. The average D2% for chiasm was 46.5 ± 4.4 Gy(RBE) for protons and 50.8 ± 1.4 Gy(RBE) for VMAT, respectively. Robust evaluation was performed and showed the least robust plans for plans with a low number of beams.Discussion: In conclusion, several influences on harmonization were identified: adherence/interpretation to/of the protocol, available technology, experience in treatment planning and use of different beam arrangements. In future, all OARs that should be included in the optimization need to be specified in order to further harmonize treatment planning.

EPR dosimetry intercomparison using smart phone touch screen glass.

This paper presents the results of an interlaboratory comparison of retrospective dosimetry using the electron paramagnetic resonance method. The test material used in this exercise was glass coming from the touch screens of smart phones that might be used as fortuitous dosimeters in a large-scale radiological incident. There were 13 participants to whom samples were dispatched, and 11 laboratories reported results. The participants received five calibration samples (0, 0.8, 2, 4, and 10 Gy) and four blindly irradiated samples (0, 0.9, 1.3, and 3.3 Gy). Participants were divided into two groups: for group A (formed by three participants), samples came from a homogeneous batch of glass and were stored in similar setting; for group B (formed by eight participants), samples came from different smart phones and stored in different settings of light and temperature. The calibration curves determined by the participants of group A had a small error and a critical level in the 0.37-0.40-Gy dose range, whereas the curves determined by the participants of group B were more scattered and led to a critical level in the 1.3-3.2-Gy dose range for six participants out of eight. Group A were able to assess the dose within 20 % for the lowest doses (<1.5 Gy) and within 5 % for the highest doses. For group B, only the highest blind dose could be evaluated in a reliable way because of the high critical values involved. The results from group A are encouraging, whereas the results from group B suggest that the influence of environmental conditions and the intervariability of samples coming from different smart phones need to be further investigated. An alongside conclusion is that the protocol was easily transferred to participants making a network of laboratories in case of a mass casualty event potentially feasible.

Chemically tuned linear energy transfer dependent quenching in a deformable, radiochromic 3D dosimeter.

Most solid-state detectors, including 3D dosimeters, show lower signal in the Bragg peak than expected, a process termed quenching. The purpose of this study was to investigate how variation in chemical composition of a recently developed radiochromic, silicone-based 3D dosimeter influences the observed quenching in proton beams. The dependency of dose response on linear energy transfer, as calculated through Monte Carlo simulations of the dosimeter, was investigated in 60 MeV proton beams. We found that the amount of quenching varied with the chemical composition: peak-to-plateau ratios (1 cm into the plateau) ranged from 2.2 to 3.4, compared to 4.3 using an ionization chamber. The dose response, and thereby the quenching, was predominantly influenced by the curing agent concentration, which determined the dosimeter's deformation properties. The dose response was found to be linear at all depths. All chemical compositions of the dosimeter showed dose-rate dependency; however this was not dependent on the linear energy transfer. Track-structure theory was used to explain the observed quenching effects. In conclusion, this study shows that the silicone-based dosimeter has potential for use in measuring 3D-dose-distributions from proton beams.

Technical Note: Improving proton stopping power ratio determination for a deformable silicone-based 3D dosimeter using dual energy CT.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the stopping power ratio (SPR) of a deformable, silicone-based 3D dosimeter could be determined more accurately using dual energy (DE) CT compared to using conventional methods based on single energy (SE) CT. The use of SECT combined with the stoichiometric calibration method was therefore compared to DECT-based determination. METHODS: The SPR of the dosimeter was estimated based on its Hounsfield units (HUs) in both a SECT image and a DECT image set. The stoichiometric calibration method was used for converting the HU in the SECT image to a SPR value for the dosimeter while two published SPR calibration methods for dual energy were applied on the DECT images. Finally, the SPR of the dosimeter was measured in a 60 MeV proton by quantifying the range difference with and without the dosimeter in the beam path. RESULTS: The SPR determined from SECT and the stoichiometric method was 1.10, compared to 1.01 with both DECT calibration methods. The measured SPR for the dosimeter material was 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: The SPR of the dosimeter was overestimated by 13% using the stoichiometric method and by 3% when using DECT. If the stoichiometric method should be applied for the dosimeter, the HU of the dosimeter must be manually changed in the treatment planning system in order to give a correct SPR estimate. Using a wrong SPR value will cause differences between the calculated and the delivered treatment plans.