Experimental comparison of cylindrical and plane parallel ionization chambers for reference dosimetry in continuous and pulsed scanned proton beams.

Objective. In this experimental work we compared the determination of absorbed dose to water using four ionization chambers (ICs), a PTW-34045 Advanced Markus, a PTW-34001 Roos, an IBA-PPC05 and a PTW-30012 Farmer, irradiated under the same conditions in one continuous- and in two pulsed-scanned proton beams.Approach. The ICs were positioned at 2 cm depth in a water phantom in four square-field single-energy scanned-proton beams with nominal energies between 80 and 220 MeV and in the middle of 10 × 10 × 10 cm3dose cubes centered at 10 cm or 12.5 cm depth in water. The water-equivalent thickness (WET) of the entrance window and the effective point of measurement was considered when positioning the plane parallel (PP) ICs and the cylindrical ICs, respectively. To reduce uncertainties, all ICs were calibrated at the same primary standards laboratory. We used the beam quality (kQ) correction factors for the ICs under investigation from IAEA TRS-398, the newly calculated Monte Carlo (MC) values and the anticipated IAEA TRS-398 updated recommendations.Main results. Dose differences among the four ICs ranged between 1.5% and 3.7% using both the TRS-398 and the newly recommendedkQvalues. The spread among the chambers is reduced with the newlykQvalues. The largest differences were observed between the rest of the ICs and the IBA-PPC05 IC, obtaining lower dose with the IBA-PPC05.Significance. We provide experimental data comparing different types of chambers in different proton beam qualities. The observed dose differences between the ICs appear to be related to inconsistencies in the determination of thekQvalues. For PP ICs, MC studies account for the physical thickness of the entrance window rather than the WET. The additional energy loss that the wall material invokes is not negligible for the IBA-PPC05 and might partially explain the lowkQvalues determined for this IC. To resolve this inconsistency and to benchmark MC values,kQvalues measured using calorimetry are needed.

Robustness of intensity modulated proton treatment of esophageal cancer for anatomical changes and breathing motion.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In this study, we assessed the robustness of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in esophageal cancer for anatomical variations during treatment. METHODS: The first sixty esophageal cancer patients, treated clinically with chemoradiotherapy were included. The treatment planning strategy was based on an internal target volume (ITV) approach, where the ITV was created from the clinical target volumes (CTVs) delineated on all phases of a 4DCT. For optimization, a 3 mm isotropic margin was added to the ITV, combined with robust optimization using 5 mm setup and 3 % range uncertainty. Each patient received weekly repeat CTs (reCTs). Robust plan re-evaluation on all reCTs, and a robust dose summation was performed. To assess the factors influencing ITV coverage, a multivariate linear regression analysis was performed. Additionally, clinical adaptations were evaluated. RESULTS: The target coverage was adequate (ITV V94%>98 % on the robust voxel-wise minimum dose) on most reCTs (91 %), and on the summed dose in 92 % of patients. Significant predictors for ITV coverage in the multivariate analysis were diaphragm baseline shift and water equivalent depth (WED) of the ITV in the beam direction. Underdosage of the ITV mainly occurred in week 1 and 4, leading to treatment adaptation of eight patients, all on the first reCT. CONCLUSION: Our IMPT treatment of esophageal cancer is robust for anatomical variations. Adaptation appears to be most effective in the first week of treatment. Diaphragm baseline shifts and WED are predictive factors for ITV underdosage, and should be incorporated in an adaptation protocol.