Evaluation of the high definition field of view option of a large-bore computed tomography scanner for radiation therapy simulation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT) scanning is the basis for radiation treatment planning, but the 50-cm standard scanning field of view (sFOV) may be too small for imaging larger patients. We evaluated the 65-cm high-definition (HD) FOV of a large-bore CT scanner for CT number accuracy, geometric distortion, image quality degradation, and dosimetric accuracy of photon treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT number accuracy was tested by placing two 16-cm acrylic phantoms on either side of a 40-cm phantom to simulate a large patient extending beyond the 50-cm-diameter standard scanning FOV. Dosimetric accuracy was tested using anthropomorphic pelvis and thorax phantoms, with additional acrylic body parts on either side of the phantoms. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy beams (a 15-MV and a 6-MV) were used to cover the planning target volumes. Two-dimensional dose distributions were evaluated with GAFChromic film and point dose accuracy was checked with multiple thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) capsules placed in the phantoms. Image quality was tested by placing an American College of Radiology accreditation phantom inside the 40-cm phantom. RESULTS: The HD FOV showed substantial changes in CT numbers, with differences of 314 HU-725 HU at different density levels. The volume of the body parts extending into the HD FOV was distorted. However, TLD-reported doses for all PTVs agreed within ± 3%. Dose agreement in organs at risk were within the passing criteria, and the gamma index pass rate was >97%. Image quality was degraded. CONCLUSIONS: The HD FOV option is adequate for RT simulation and met accreditation standards, although care should be taken during contouring because of reduced image quality.

Monte Carlo Simulations of Neutron Ambient Dose Equivalent in a Novel Proton Therapy Facility Design.

PURPOSE: The neutron shielding properties of the concrete structures of a proposed proton therapy facility were evaluated with help of the Monte Carlo technique. The planned facility's design omits the typical maze-structured entrances to the treatment rooms to facilitate more efficient access and, instead, proposes the use of massive concrete/steel doors. Furthermore, straight conduits in the treatment room walls were used in the design of the facility, necessitating a detailed investigation of the neutron radiation outside the rooms to determine if the design can be applied without violating existing radiation protection regulations. This study was performed to investigate whether the operation of a proton therapy unit using such a facility design will be in compliance with radiation protection requirements. METHODS: A detailed model of the planned proton therapy expansion project of the University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, was produced to simulate secondary neutron production from clinical proton beams using the MCNPX Monte Carlo radiation transport code. Neutron spectral fluences were collected at locations of interest and converted to ambient dose equivalents using an in-house code based on fluence to dose-conversion factors provided by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: At all investigated locations of interest, the ambient dose equivalent values were below the occupational dose limits and the dose limits for individual members of the public. The impact of straight conduits was negligible because their location and orientation were such that no line of sight to the neutron sources (ie, the isocenter locations) was established. Finally, the treatment room doors were specially designed to provide spatial efficiency and, compared with traditional maze designs, showed that while it would be possible to achieve a lower neutron ambient dose equivalent with a maze, the increased spatial (and financial) requirements may offset this advantage.

Results of the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0848 Adjuvant Chemotherapy Question-Erlotinib+Gemcitabine for Resected Cancer of the Pancreatic Head: A Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: NRG/RTOG 0848 was designed to determine whether adjuvant radiation with fluoropyrimidine sensitization improved survival following gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In step 1 of this protocol, patients were randomized to adjuvant gemcitabine versus the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib. This manuscript reports the final analysis of these step 1 data. METHODS: Eligibility-within 10 weeks of curative intent pancreaticoduodenectomy with postoperative CA19-9<180. Gemcitabine arm-6 cycles of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine+erlotinib arm-gemcitabine and erlotinib 100 mg/d. Two hundred deaths provided 90% power (1-sided α=0.15) to detect the hypothesized OS signal (hazard ratio=0.72) in favor of the arm 2. RESULTS: From November 17, 2009 to February 28, 2014, 163 patients were randomized and evaluable for arm 1 and 159 for arm 2. Median age was 63 (39 to 86) years. CA19-9 ≤90 in 93%. Arm 1: 32 patients (20%) grade 4 and 2 (1%) grade 5 adverse events; arm 2, 27 (17%) grade 4 and 3 (2%) grade 5. GI adverse events, arm 1: 22% grade ≥3 and arm 2: 28%, (P=0.22). The median follow-up (surviving patients) was 42.5 months (min-max: <1 to 75). With 203 deaths, the median and 3-year OS (95% confidence interval) are 29.9 months (21.7, 33.4) and 39% (30, 45) for arm 1 and 28.1 months (20.7, 30.9) and 39% (31, 47) for arm 2 (log-rank P=0.62). Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) comparing OS of arm 2 to arm 1 is 1.04 (0.79, 1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of adjuvant erlotinib to gemcitabine did not provide a signal for increased OS in this trial.

Characterization of a new physical phantom for testing rigid and deformable image registration.

The purpose of this study was to describe a new user-friendly, low-cost phantom that was developed to test the accuracy of rigid and deformable image registration (DIR) systems and to demonstrate the functional efficacy of the new phantom. The phantom was constructed out of acrylic and includes a variety of inserts that simulate different tissue shapes and properties. It can simulate deformations and location changes in patient anatomy by changing the rotations of both the phantom and the inserts. CT scans of this phantom were obtained and used to test the rigid and deformable registration accuracy of the Velocity software. Eight rotation and translation scenarios were used to test the rigid registration accuracy, and 11 deformation scenarios were used to test the DIR accuracy. The mean rotation accuracies in the X-Y (axial) and X-Z (coronal) planes were 0.50° and 0.13°, respectively. The mean translation accuracy was 1 mm in both the X and Y direction and was tested in soft tissue and bone. The DIR accuracies for soft tissue and bone were 0.93 (mean Dice similarity coefficient), 8.3 and 4.5 mm (mean Hausdouff distance), 0.95 and 0.79 mm (mean distance), and 1.13 and 1.12 (mean volume ratio) for soft tissue content (DTE oil) and bone, respectively. The new phantom has a simple design and can be constructed at a low cost. This phantom will allow DIR systems to be effectively and efficiently verified to ensure system performance.

Synchrotron-Based Pencil Beam Scanning Nozzle with an Integrated Mini-Ridge Filter: A Dosimetric Study to Optimize Treatment Delivery.

A mini-ridge filter is often used to widen the Bragg peak in the longitudinal direction at low energies but not high energies. To facilitate the clinical use of a mini-ridge filter, we performed a planning study for the feasibility of a mini-ridge filter as an integral part of the synchrotron nozzle (IMRF). Dose models with and without IMRF were commissioned in a commercial Treatment planning system (TPS). Dosimetric characteristics in a homogenous water phantom were compared between plans with and without IMRF for a fixed spread-out Bragg peak width of 4 cm with distal ranges varying from 8 to 30 g/cm². Six clinical cases were then used to compare the plan quality between plans. The delivery efficiency was also compared between plans in both the phantom and the clinical cases. The Bragg peak width was increased by 0.18 cm at the lowest energy and by only about 0.04 cm at the highest energy. The IMRF increased the spot size (σ) by up to 0.1 cm at the lowest energy and by only 0.02 cm at the highest energy. For the phantom, the IMRF negligibly affected dose at high energies but increased the lateral penumbra by up to 0.12 cm and the distal penumbra by up to 0.06 cm at low energies. For the clinical cases, the IMRF slightly increased dose to the organs at risk. However, the beam delivery time was reduced from 18.5% to 47.1% for the lung, brain, scalp, and head and neck cases, and dose uniformities of target were improved up to 2.9% for these cases owing to the reduced minimum monitor unit effect. In conclusion, integrating a mini-ridge filter into a synchrotron nozzle is feasible for improving treatment efficiency without significantly sacrificing the plan quality.

Technical Note: Dosimetric characteristics of the ocular beam line and commissioning data for an ocular proton therapy planning system at the Proton Therapy Center Houston.

PURPOSE: To systematically analyze and present the properties of a small-field, double-scattering proton beam line intended to be used for the treatment of ocular cancer, and to provide configuration data for commission of the Eclipse Ocular Proton Planning System. METHODS: Measurements were made using ionization chambers, diodes, and films to determine dose profiles and output factors of the proton beams of the beam line at the Proton Therapy Center Houston. In parallel, Monte Carlo simulations were performed to validate the measured data and to provide additional insight into detailed beam parameters that are hard to measure, such as field size factors and a comparison of output factors as a function of circular and rectangular fields. RESULTS: The presented data comprise depth dose profiles, including distal and proximal profiles used to configure the Eclipse Ocular Proton Planning system, distal fall-off widths, lateral profiles and penumbrae sizes, as well as output factors as a function of field size, SOBP width, range shifter thickness, snout position, and source-to-surface distance. CONCLUSIONS: We have completed a comprehensive characterization of the beam line. The data will be useful to characterize proton beams in clinical and experimental small-field applications.

Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Adaptive Planning for Patients with Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: The authors aimed to illustrate the potential dose differences to clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) volumes after proton adaptive treatment planning was used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 10 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Each patient's treatment plan was generated by using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Verification computed tomography (CT) scan was performed during the fourth week of treatment. Deformable image registrations were performed between the 2 CT image sets, and the CTVs and major OARs were transferred to the verification CT images to generate the adaptive plan. We compared the accumulated doses to CTVs and OARs between the original and adaptive plans, as well as between the adaptive and verification plans to simulate doses that would have been delivered if the adaptive plans were not used. RESULTS: Body contours were different on planning and week-4 verification CTs. Mean volumes of all CTVs were reduced by 4% to 8% (P ≤ .04), and the volumes of left and right parotid glands also decreased (by 11% to 12%, P ≤ .004). Brainstem and oral cavity volumes did not significantly differ (all P ≥ .14). All mean doses to the CTV were decreased for up to 7% (P ≤ .04), whereas mean doses to the right parotid and oral cavity increased from a range of 5% to 8% (P ≤ .03), respectively. CONCLUSION: Verification and adaptive planning should be recommended during the course of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer to ensure adequate dose deliveries to the planned CTVs, while safe doses to OARs can be respected.

Spot scanning proton therapy minimizes neutron dose in the setting of radiation therapy administered during pregnancy.

This is a real case study to minimize the neutron dose equivalent (H) to a fetus using spot scanning proton beams with favorable beam energies and angles. Minimum neutron dose exposure to the fetus was achieved with iterative planning under the guidance of neutron H measurement. Two highly conformal treatment plans, each with three spot scanning beams, were planned to treat a 25-year-old pregnant female with aggressive recurrent chordoma of the base of skull who elected not to proceed with termination. Each plan was scheduled for delivery every other day for robust target coverage. Neutron H to the fetus was measured using a REM500 neutron survey meter placed at the fetus position of a patient simulating phantom. 4.1 and 44.1 µSv/fraction were measured for the two initial plans. A vertex beam with higher energy and the fetal position closer to its central axis was the cause for the plan that produced an order higher neutron H. Replacing the vertex beam with a lateral beam reduced neutron H to be comparable with the other plan. For a prescription of 70 Gy in 35 fractions, the total neutron H to the fetus was estimated to be 0.35 mSv based on final measurement in single fraction. In comparison, the passive scattering proton plan and photon plan had an estimation of 26 and 70 mSv, respectively, for this case. While radiation therapy in pregnant patients should be avoided if at all possible, our work demonstrated spot scanning beam limited the total neutron H to the fetus an order lower than the suggested 5 mSv regulation threshold. It is far superior than passive scattering beam and careful beam selection with lower energy and keeping fetus further away from beam axis are essential in minimizing the fetus neutron exposure.

Quantitative analysis of treatment process time and throughput capacity for spot scanning proton therapy.

PURPOSE: To determine the patient throughput and the overall efficiency of the spot scanning system by analyzing treatment time, equipment availability, and maximum daily capacity for the current spot scanning port at Proton Therapy Center Houston and to assess the daily throughput capacity for a hypothetical spot scanning proton therapy center. METHODS: At their proton therapy center, the authors have been recording in an electronic medical record system all treatment data, including disease site, number of fields, number of fractions, delivered dose, energy, range, number of spots, and number of layers for every treatment field. The authors analyzed delivery system downtimes that had been recorded for every equipment failure and associated incidents. These data were used to evaluate the patient census, patient distribution as a function of the number of fields and total target volume, and equipment clinical availability. The duration of each treatment session from patient walk-in to patient walk-out of the spot scanning treatment room was measured for 64 patients with head and neck, central nervous system, thoracic, and genitourinary cancers. The authors retrieved data for total target volume and the numbers of layers and spots for all fields from treatment plans for a total of 271 patients (including the above 64 patients). A sensitivity analysis of daily throughput capacity was performed by varying seven parameters in a throughput capacity model. RESULTS: The mean monthly equipment clinical availability for the spot scanning port in April 2012-March 2015 was 98.5%. Approximately 1500 patients had received spot scanning proton therapy as of March 2015. The major disease sites treated in September 2012-August 2014 were the genitourinary system (34%), head and neck (30%), central nervous system (21%), and thorax (14%), with other sites accounting for the remaining 1%. Spot scanning beam delivery time increased with total target volume and accounted for approximately 30%-40% of total treatment time for the total target volumes exceeding 200 cm(3), which was the case for more than 80% of the patients in this study. When total treatment time was modeled as a function of the number of fields and total target volume, the model overestimated total treatment time by 12% on average, with a standard deviation of 32%. A sensitivity analysis of throughput capacity for a hypothetical four-room spot scanning proton therapy center identified several priority items for improvements in throughput capacity, including operation time, beam delivery time, and patient immobilization and setup time. CONCLUSIONS: The spot scanning port at our proton therapy center has operated at a high performance level and has been used to treat a large number of complex cases. Further improvements in efficiency may be feasible in the areas of facility operation, beam delivery, patient immobilization and setup, and optimization of treatment scheduling.

Clinical Outcomes and Patterns of Disease Recurrence After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A single-institution prospective study was conducted to assess disease control and toxicity of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Disease control, toxicity, functional outcomes, and patterns of failure for the initial cohort of patients with oropharyngeal squamous carcinoma (OPC) treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were prospectively collected in 2 registry studies at a single institution. Locoregional failures were analyzed by using deformable image registration. RESULTS: Fifty patients with OPC treated from March 3, 2011, to July 2014 formed the cohort. Eighty-four percent were male, 50% had never smoked, 98% had stage III/IV disease, 64% received concurrent therapy, and 35% received induction chemotherapy. Forty-four of 45 tumors (98%) tested for p16 were positive. All patients received IMPT (multifield optimization to n=46; single-field optimization to n=4). No Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. The most common grade 3 toxicities were acute mucositis in 58% of patients and late dysphagia in 12%. Eleven patients had a gastrostomy (feeding) tube placed during therapy, but none had a feeding tube at last follow-up. At a median follow-up time of 29 months, 5 patients had disease recurrence: local in 1, local and regional in 1, regional in 2, and distant in 1. The 2-year actuarial overall and progression-free survival rates were 94.5% and 88.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The oncologic, toxicity, and functional outcomes after IMPT for OPC are encouraging and provide the basis for ongoing and future clinical studies.

Novel Hybrid Scattering- and Scanning-Beam Proton Therapy Approach.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a hybrid intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and passive scattered proton therapy (PSPT) technique, termed HimpsPT, could be adopted as an alternative delivery method for patients demanding scanning beam proton therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 3 representative clinical cases-an oropharyngeal cancer, skull base chordoma, and stage III non-small-cell lung cancer-that had been treated with IMPT at our center. We retrospectively redesigned these cases using HimpsPT. The PSPT plans for all three cases were designed with the same prescriptions as those used in the IMPT plans. In this way, the whole treatment was delivered using alternating or sequential PSPT and IMPT. RESULTS: All HimpsPT plans met the clinical dose criteria and were of similar quality as the IMPT plans. In the skull base case, the mixed plan was more effective at sparing the brain stem because the sharp penumbra of the aperture in the PSPT plans was not present in the IMPT plans. The HimpsPT plans were more robust than the clinical IMPT plans generated without robust optimization. CONCLUSION: The HimpsPT delivery technique can achieve a treatment-plan quality similar to that of IMPT, even in the most challenging clinical cases. In addition, at centers equipped with both scattering and scanning beam capabilities, the HimpsPT technique may allow more patients to benefit from scanning beam technology.

Towards effective and efficient patient-specific quality assurance for spot scanning proton therapy.

An intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) program based on measurement alone can be very time consuming due to the highly modulated dose distributions of IMPT fields. Incorporating independent dose calculation and treatment log file analysis could reduce the time required for measurements. In this article, we summarize our effort to develop an efficient and effective PSQA program that consists of three components: measurements, independent dose calculation, and analysis of patient-specific treatment delivery log files. Measurements included two-dimensional (2D) measurements using an ionization chamber array detector for each field delivered at the planned gantry angles with the electronic medical record (EMR) system in the QA mode and the accelerator control system (ACS) in the treatment mode, and additional measurements at depths for each field with the ACS in physics mode and without the EMR system. Dose distributions for each field in a water phantom were calculated independently using a recently developed in-house pencil beam algorithm and compared with those obtained using the treatment planning system (TPS). The treatment log file for each field was analyzed in terms of deviations in delivered spot positions from their planned positions using various statistical methods. Using this improved PSQA program, we were able to verify the integrity of the data transfer from the TPS to the EMR to the ACS, the dose calculation of the TPS, and the treatment delivery, including the dose delivered and spot positions. On the basis of this experience, we estimate that the in-room measurement time required for each complex IMPT case (e.g., a patient receiving bilateral IMPT for head and neck cancer) is less than 1 h using the improved PSQA program. Our experience demonstrates that it is possible to develop an efficient and effective PSQA program for IMPT with the equipment and resources available in the clinic.

A single-field integrated boost treatment planning technique for spot scanning proton therapy.

PURPOSE: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans are normally generated utilizing multiple field optimization (MFO) techniques. Similar to photon based IMRT, MFO allows for the utilization of a simultaneous integrated boost in which multiple target volumes are treated to discrete doses simultaneously, potentially improving plan quality and streamlining quality assurance and treatment delivery. However, MFO may render plans more sensitive to the physical uncertainties inherent to particle therapy. Here we present clinical examples of a single-field integrated boost (SFIB) technique for spot scanning proton therapy based on single field optimization (SFO) treatment-planning techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We designed plans of each type for illustrative patients with central nervous system (brain and spine), prostate and head and neck malignancies. SFIB and IMPT plans were constructed to deliver multiple prescription dose levels to multiple targets using SFO or MFO, respectively. Dose and fractionation schemes were based on the current clinical practice using X-ray IMRT in our clinic. For inverse planning, dose constraints were employed to achieve the desired target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Conformality and inhomogeneity indices were calculated to quantify plan quality. We also compared the worst-case robustness of the SFIB, sequential boost SFUD, and IMPT plans. RESULTS: The SFIB technique produced more conformal dose distributions than plans generated by sequential boost using a SFUD technique (conformality index for prescription isodose levels; 0.585 ± 0.30 vs. 0.435 ± 0.24, SFIB vs. SFUD respectively, Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test, p < 0.01). There was no difference in the conformality index between SFIB and IMPT plans (0.638 ± 0.27 vs. 0.633 ± 0.26, SFIB vs. IMPT, respectively). Heterogeneity between techniques was not significantly different. With respect to clinical metrics, SFIB plans proved more robust than the corresponding IMPT plans. CONCLUSIONS: SFIB technique for scanning beam proton therapy (SSPT) is now routinely employed in our clinic. The SFIB technique is a natural application of SFO and offers several advantages over SFUD, including more conformal plans, seamless treatment delivery and more efficient planning and QA. SFIB may be more robust than IMPT and has been the treatment planning technique of choice for some patients.

Relative stopping power measurements to aid in the design of anthropomorphic phantoms for proton radiotherapy.

The delivery of accurate proton dose for clinical trials requires that the appropriate conversion function from Hounsfield unit (HU) to relative linear stopping power (RLSP) be used in proton treatment planning systems (TPS). One way of verifying that the TPS is calculating the correct dose is an end-to-end test using an anthropomorphic phantom containing tissue equivalent materials and dosimeters. Many of the phantoms in use for such end-to-end tests were originally designed using tissue-equivalent materials that had physical characteristics to match patient tissues when irradiated with megavoltage photon beams. The aim of this study was to measure the RLSP of materials used in the phantoms, as well as alternative materials to enable modifying phantoms for use at proton therapy centers. Samples of materials used and projected for use in the phantoms were measured and compared to the HU assigned by the treatment planning system. A percent difference in RLSP of 5% was used as the cutoff for materials deemed acceptable for use in proton therapy (i.e., proton equivalent). Until proper tissue-substitute materials are identified and incorporated, institutions that conduct end-to-end tests with the phantoms are instructed to override the TPS with the measured stopping powers we provide. To date, the RLSPs of 18 materials have been measured using a water phantom and/or multilayer ion chamber (MLIC). Nine materials were identified as acceptable for use in anthropomorphic phantoms. Some of the failing tissue substitute materials are still used in the current phantoms. Further investigation for additional appropriate tissue substitute materials in proton beams is ongoing. Until all anthropomorphic phantoms are constructed of appropriate materials, a unique HU-RLSP phantom has been developed to be used during site visits to verify the proton facility's treatment planning HU-RLSP calibration curve.

Improving spot-scanning proton therapy patient specific quality assurance with HPlusQA, a second-check dose calculation engine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate the use of HPlusQA, spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT) dose calculation software developed at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, as second-check dose calculation software for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). The authors also showed how HPlusQA can be used within the current PSQA framework. METHODS: The authors compared the dose calculations of HPlusQA and the Eclipse treatment planning system with 106 planar dose measurements made as part of PSQA. To determine the relative performance and the degree of correlation between HPlusQA and Eclipse, the authors compared calculated with measured point doses. Then, to determine how well HPlusQA can predict when the comparisons between Eclipse calculations and the measured dose will exceed tolerance levels, the authors compared gamma index scores for HPlusQA versus Eclipse with those of measured doses versus Eclipse. The authors introduce the αßγ transformation as a way to more easily compare gamma scores. RESULTS: The authors compared measured and calculated dose planes using the relative depth, z∕R × 100%, where z is the depth of the measurement and R is the proton beam range. For relative depths than less than 80%, both Eclipse and HPlusQA calculations were within 2 cGy of dose measurements on average. When the relative depth was greater than 80%, the agreement between the calculations and measurements fell to 4 cGy. For relative depths less than 10%, the Eclipse and HPlusQA dose discrepancies showed a negative correlation, -0.21. Otherwise, the correlation between the dose discrepancies was positive and as large as 0.6. For the dose planes in this study, HPlusQA correctly predicted when Eclipse had and had not calculated the dose to within tolerance 92% and 79% of the time, respectively. In 4 of 106 cases, HPlusQA failed to predict when the comparison between measurement and Eclipse's calculation had exceeded the tolerance levels of 3% for dose and 3 mm for distance-to-agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found HPlusQA to be reasonably effective (79% ± 10%) in determining when the comparison between measured dose planes and the dose planes calculated by the Eclipse treatment planning system had exceeded the acceptable tolerance levels. When used as described in this study, HPlusQA can reduce the need for patient specific quality assurance measurements by 64%. The authors believe that the use of HPlusQA as a dose calculation second check can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the QA process.

Development of a modified head and neck quality assurance phantom for use in stereotactic radiosurgery trials.

An anthropomorphic head phantom, constructed from a water-equivalent plastic shell with only a spherical target, was modified to include a nonspherical target (pituitary) and an adjacent organ at risk (OAR) (optic chiasm), within 2 mm, simulating the anatomy encountered when treating acromegaly. The target and OAR spatial proximity provided a more realistic treatment planning and dose delivery exercise. A separate dosimetry insert contained two TLD for absolute dosimetry and radiochromic film, in the sagittal and coronal planes, for relative dosimetry. The prescription was 25 Gy to 90% of the GTV, with ≤ 10% of the OAR volume receiving ≥ 8 Gy for the phantom trial. The modified phantom was used to test the rigor of the treatment planning process and phantom reproducibility using a Gamma Knife, CyberKnife, and linear accelerator (linac)-based radiosurgery system. Delivery reproducibility was tested by repeating each irradiation three times. TLD results from three irradiations on a CyberKnife and Gamma Knife agreed with the calculated target dose to within ± 4% with a maximum coefficient of variation of ± 2.1%. Gamma analysis in the coronal and sagittal film planes showed an average passing rate of 99.4% and 99.5% using ± 5%/3 mm criteria, respectively. Results from the linac irradiation were within ± 6.2% for TLD with a coefficient of variation of ± 0.1%. Distance to agreement was calculated to be 1.2 mm and 1.3mm along the inferior and superior edges of the target in the sagittal film plane, and 1.2 mm for both superior and inferior edges in the coronal film plane. A modified, anatomically realistic SRS phantom was developed that provided a realistic clinical planning and delivery challenge that can be used to credential institutions wanting to participate in NCI-funded clinical trials.

Use of treatment log files in spot scanning proton therapy as part of patient-specific quality assurance.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to assess the monitor unit (MU) values and position accuracy of spot scanning proton beams as recorded by the daily treatment logs of the treatment control system, and furthermore establish the feasibility of using the delivered spot positions and MU values to calculate and evaluate delivered doses to patients. METHODS: To validate the accuracy of the recorded spot positions, the authors generated and executed a test treatment plan containing nine spot positions, to which the authors delivered ten MU each. The spot positions were measured with radiographic films and Matrixx 2D ion-chambers array placed at the isocenter plane and compared for displacements from the planned and recorded positions. Treatment logs for 14 patients were then used to determine the spot MU values and position accuracy of the scanning proton beam delivery system. Univariate analysis was used to detect any systematic error or large variation between patients, treatment dates, proton energies, gantry angles, and planned spot positions. The recorded patient spot positions and MU values were then used to replace the spot positions and MU values in the plan, and the treatment planning system was used to calculate the delivered doses to patients. The results were compared with the treatment plan. RESULTS: Within a treatment session, spot positions were reproducible within ±0.2 mm. The spot positions measured by film agreed with the planned positions within ±1 mm and with the recorded positions within ±0.5 mm. The maximum day-to-day variation for any given spot position was within ±1 mm. For all 14 patients, with ∼1 500 000 spots recorded, the total MU accuracy was within 0.1% of the planned MU values, the mean (x, y) spot displacement from the planned value was (-0.03 mm, -0.01 mm), the maximum (x, y) displacement was (1.68 mm, 2.27 mm), and the (x, y) standard deviation was (0.26 mm, 0.42 mm). The maximum dose difference between calculated dose to the patient based on the plan and recorded data was within 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have shown that the treatment log file in a spot scanning proton beam delivery system is precise enough to serve as a quality assurance tool to monitor variation in spot position and MU value, as well as the delivered dose uncertainty from the treatment delivery system. The analysis tool developed here could be useful for assessing spot position uncertainty and thus dose uncertainty for any patient receiving spot scanning proton beam therapy.

Proton beam therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Proton beam therapy (PBT) offers the potential of dose escalation to target tissue while decreasing toxicity through unique physical dose deposition characteristics. PBT has been used to treat prostate cancer for several decades; however, recent enhancements in availability and treatment delivery have peaked interest in this technology among radiation oncologists, industry experts, and prostate cancer patients. As a result, the importance of understanding the collective experience and technical aspects of PBT delivery has become increasingly important in radiation medicine. This review article is intended to critically review the literature on PBT for localized prostate cancer, discuss the fundamentals of PBT treatment planning, and describe the continued development of proton beam technology for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Dynamically accumulated dose and 4D accumulated dose for moving tumors.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to investigate the relationship between dynamically accumulated dose (dynamic dose) and 4D accumulated dose (4D dose) for irradiation of moving tumors, and to quantify the dose uncertainty induced by tumor motion. METHODS: The authors established that regardless of treatment modality and delivery properties, the dynamic dose will converge to the 4D dose, instead of the 3D static dose, after multiple deliveries. The bounds of dynamic dose, or the maximum estimation error using 4D or static dose, were established for the 4D and static doses, respectively. Numerical simulations were performed (1) to prove the principle that for each phase, after multiple deliveries, the average number of deliveries for any given time converges to the total number of fractions (K) over the number of phases (N); (2) to investigate the dose difference between the 4D and dynamic doses as a function of the number of deliveries for deliveries of a "pulsed beam"; and (3) to investigate the dose difference between 4D dose and dynamic doses as a function of delivery time for deliveries of a "continuous beam." A Poisson model was developed to estimate the mean dose error as a function of number of deliveries or delivered time for both pulsed beam and continuous beam. RESULTS: The numerical simulations confirmed that the number of deliveries for each phase converges to K∕N, assuming a random starting phase. Simulations for the pulsed beam and continuous beam also suggested that the dose error is a strong function of the number of deliveries and∕or total deliver time and could be a function of the breathing cycle, depending on the mode of delivery. The Poisson model agrees well with the simulation. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamically accumulated dose will converge to the 4D accumulated dose after multiple deliveries, regardless of treatment modality. Bounds of the dynamic dose could be determined using quantities derived from 4D doses, and the mean dose difference between the dynamic dose and 4D dose as a function of number of deliveries and∕or total deliver time was also established.

A procedure to determine the planar integral spot dose values of proton pencil beam spots.

PURPOSE: Planar integral spot dose (PISD) of proton pencil beam spots (PPBSs) is a required input parameter for beam modeling in some treatment planning systems used in proton therapy clinics. The measurement of PISD by using commercially available large area ionization chambers, like the PTW Bragg peak chamber (BPC), can have large uncertainties due to the size limitation of these chambers. This paper reports the results of our study of a novel method to determine PISD values from the measured lateral dose profiles and peak dose of the PPBS. METHODS: The PISDs of 72.5, 89.6, 146.9, 181.1, and 221.8 MeV energy PPBSs were determined by area integration of their planar dose distributions at different depths in water. The lateral relative dose profiles of the PPBSs at selected depths were measured by using small volume ion chambers and were investigated for their angular anisotropies using Kodak XV films. The peak spot dose along the beam's central axis (D(0)) was determined by placing a small volume ion chamber at the center of a broad field created by the superposition of spots at different locations. This method allows eliminating positioning uncertainties and the detector size effect that could occur when measuring it in single PPBS. The PISD was then calculated by integrating the measured lateral relative dose profiles for two different upper limits of integration and then multiplying it with corresponding D(0). The first limit of integration was set to radius of the BPC, namely 4.08 cm, giving PISD(RBPC). The second limit was set to a value of the radial distance where the profile dose falls below 0.1% of the peak giving the PISD(full). The calculated values of PISD(RBPC) obtained from area integration method were compared with the BPC measured values. Long tail dose correction factors (LTDCFs) were determined from the ratio of PISD(full)∕PISD(RBPC) at different depths for PPBSs of different energies. RESULTS: The spot profiles were found to have angular anisotropy. This anisotropy in PPBS dose distribution could be accounted in a reasonable approximate manner by taking the average of PISD values obtained using the in-line and cross-line profiles. The PISD(RBPC) values fall within 3.5% of those measured by BPC. Due to inherent dosimetry challenges associated with PPBS dosimetry, which can lead to large experimental uncertainties, such an agreement is considered to be satisfactory for validation purposes. The PISD(full) values show differences ranging from 1 to 11% from BPC measured values, which are mainly due to the size limitation of the BPC to account for the dose in the long tail regions of the spots extending beyond its 4.08 cm radius. The dose in long tail regions occur both for high energy beams such as 221.8 MeV PPBS due to the contributions of nuclear interactions products in the medium, and for low energy PPBS because of their larger spot sizes. The calculated LTDCF values agree within 1% with those determined by the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. CONCLUSIONS: The area integration method to compute the PISD from PPBS lateral dose profiles is found to be useful both to determine the correction factors for the values measured by the BPC and to validate the results from MC simulations.