The implementation of an image-guided system at a proton therapy center facility.

PURPOSE: Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) proton therapy has similar requirements on patient alignment to within 1 mm and 1-degree accuracy as photon radiosurgery. This study describes general workflow, acceptance, and commissioning test procedures and their respective results for an independent robotic arm used for Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) for a Proton Therapy System. METHODS: The system is equipped with kV-imaging techniques capable of orthogonal and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging modalities mounted on an independent robotic arm gantry attached to the ceiling. The imaging system is capable of 360-degree rotation around patients to produce CBCT and kilovoltage orthogonal images. The imaging hardware is controlled by Ehmet Health XIS software, and MIM Software handles the image fusion and registration to an acceptable accuracy of ≤1-mm shifts for patients' alignment. The system was tested according to the requirements outlined in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG) 142 and TG 179. The system tests included (1) safety, functionality, and connectivity, (2) mechanical testing, (3) image quality, (4) image registration, and (5) imaging dose. Additional tests included imaging gantry isocentricity with a laser tracker and collision-avoiding system checks. RESULTS: The orthogonal and volumetric imaging are comparable in quality to other commercially available On-Board Imagers (OBI) systems. The resulting spatial resolution values were 1.8-, 0.8-, and 0.5-Line Pairs per Millimeter (lp/mm) for orthogonal, full-fan CBCT, and half-fan CBCT, respectively. The image registration is accurate to within 1 mm and 1 degree. The data shows consistent imaging-guided system performance with standard deviations in x, y, and z of 0.7, 0.8, and 0.7 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The system provides excellent image quality and performance, which can be used for IGRT. The proven accuracy of the x-ray imaging and positioning system at McLaren Proton Therapy Center (MPTC) is 1 mm, making it suitable for proton therapy.

AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators.

The charges on this task group (TG) were as follows: (a) provide specific procedural guidelines for performing the tests recommended in TG 142; (b) provide estimate of the range of time, appropriate personnel, and qualifications necessary to complete the tests in TG 142; and (c) provide sample daily, weekly, monthly, or annual quality assurance (QA) forms. Many of the guidelines in this report are drawn from the literature and are included in the references. When literature was not available, specific test methods reflect the experiences of the TG members (e.g., a test method for door interlock is self-evident with no literature necessary). In other cases, the technology is so new that no literature for test methods was available. Given broad clinical adaptation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which is not a specific topic of TG 142, several tests and criteria specific to VMAT were added.

AAPM task group 224: Comprehensive proton therapy machine quality assurance.

PURPOSE:  Task Group (TG) 224 was established by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the Radiation Therapy Committee and Work Group on Particle Beams. The group was charged with developing comprehensive quality assurance (QA) guidelines and recommendations for the three commonly employed proton therapy techniques for beam delivery: scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning. This report supplements established QA guidelines for therapy machine performance for other widely used modalities, such as photons and electrons (TG 142, TG 40, TG 24, TG 22, TG 179, and Medical Physics Practice Guideline 2a) and shares their aims of ensuring the safe, accurate, and consistent delivery of radiation therapy dose distributions to patients. METHODS:  To provide a basis from which machine-specific QA procedures can be developed, the report first describes the different delivery techniques and highlights the salient components of the related machine hardware. Depending on the particular machine hardware, certain procedures may be more or less important, and each institution should investigate its own situation. RESULTS:  In lieu of such investigations, this report identifies common beam parameters that are typically checked, along with the typical frequencies of those checks (daily, weekly, monthly, or annually). The rationale for choosing these checks and their frequencies is briefly described. Short descriptions of suggested tools and procedures for completing some of the periodic QA checks are also presented. CONCLUSION:  Recommended tolerance limits for each of the recommended QA checks are tabulated, and are based on the literature and on consensus data from the clinical proton experience of the task group members. We hope that this and other reports will serve as a reference for clinical physicists wishing either to establish a proton therapy QA program or to evaluate an existing one.

Technical Note: Use of commercial multilayer Faraday cup for offline daily beam range verification at the McLaren Proton Therapy Center.

PURPOSE: Daily verification of the proton beam range in proton radiation therapy is a vital part of the quality assurance (QA) program. The objective of this work is to study the use of a multilayer Faraday cup (MLFC) to perform a quick and precise daily range verification of proton beams produced by a synchrotron. METHODS: Proton beam depth dose measurements were performed at room iso-center in water using PTW water tank and Bragg Peak ion chamber. The IBA Giraffe, calibrated against the water tank data, was used to measure the water equivalent thickness (WET) of the sample copper plates. The WET measurements provided the range calibration factors for the MLFC. To establish a baseline for in room measurements, range measurements for energies from 70 to 250 MeV in steps of 10 MeV were performed using the Pyramid MLFC at room iso-center. For the daily range verification measurements, the MLFC is permanently placed at the end of the beam line, inside the accelerator vault. The daily range constancy is performed for five representative beam energies; namely 70, 100, 150, 200, and 250 MeV. Data collected over a period of more than 100 days are analyzed and presented. RESULTS: The measured WET values of the copper plates increased with increasing energy. The centroid channel number in the MLFC where the protons stop, was converted to depth in water and compared to the depth of the distal 80% (d80) obtained from the water tank measurements. The depths agreed to within 2 mm, with the maximum deviation of 1.97 mm observed for 250 MeV beam. The daily variation in the ranges measured by the MLFC was within ±0.5 mm. The total time to verify five proton beam ranges varies between 4 and 5 min. CONCLUSION: Based on the result of our measurements, the MLFC can be used for a daily range constancy check with submillimeter accuracy. It is a quick and simple method to perform range constancy verification on a daily basis.

EBT2 film as a depth-dose measurement tool for radiotherapy beams over a wide range of energies and modalities.

PURPOSE: One of the fundamental parameters used for dose calculation is percentage depth-dose, generally measured employing ionization chambers. There are situations where use of ion chambers for measuring depth-doses is difficult or problematic. In such cases, radiochromic film might be an alternative. The EBT-2 model GAFCHROMIC™ film was investigated as a potential tool for depth-dose measurement in radiotherapy beams over a broad range of energies and modalities. METHODS: Pieces of the EBT-2 model GAFCHROMIC™ EBT2 film were exposed to x-ray, electron, and proton beams used in radiotherapy. The beams employed for this study included kilovoltage x-rays (75 kVp), (60)Co gamma-rays, megavoltage x-rays (18 MV), electrons (7 and 20 MeV), and pristine Bragg-peak proton beams (126 and 152 MeV). At each beam quality, film response was measured over the dose range of 0.4-8.0 Gy, which corresponds to optical densities ranging from 0.05 to 0.4 measured with a flat-bed document scanner. To assess precision in depth-dose measurements with the EBT-2 model GAFCHROMIC™ film, uncertainty in measured optical density was investigated with respect to variation in film-to-film and scanner-bed uniformity. RESULTS: For most beams, percentage depth-doses measured with the EBT-2 model GAFCHROMIC™ film show an excellent agreement with those measured with ion chambers. Some discrepancies are observed in case of (i) kilovoltage x-rays at larger depths due to beam-hardening, and (ii) proton beams around Bragg-peak due to quenching effects. For these beams, an empirical polynomial correction produces better agreement with ion-chamber data. CONCLUSIONS: The EBT-2 model GAFCHROMIC™ film is an excellent secondary dosimeter for measurement of percentage depth-doses for a broad range of beam qualities and modalities used in radiotherapy. It offers an easy and efficient way to measure beam depth-dose data with a high spatial resolution.

Patient-specific quality assurance for prostate cancer patients receiving spot scanning proton therapy using single-field uniform dose.

PURPOSE: To describe our experiences with patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for patients with prostate cancer receiving spot scanning proton therapy (SSPT) using single-field uniform dose (SFUD). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The first group of 249 patients with prostate cancer treated with SSPT using SFUD was included in this work. The scanning-beam planning target volume and number of monitor units were recorded and checked for consistency. Patient-specific dosimetric measurements were performed, including the point dose for each plan, depth doses, and two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution in the planes perpendicular to the incident beam direction for each field at multiple depths. The γ-index with 3% dose or 3-mm distance agreement criteria was used to evaluate the 2D dose distributions. RESULTS: We observed a linear relationship between the number of monitor units and scanning-beam planning target volume. The difference between the measured and calculated point doses (mean ± SD) was 0.0% ± 0.7% (range, -2.9% to 1.8%). In general, the depth doses exhibited good agreement except at the distal end of the spread-out Bragg peak. The pass rate of γ-index (mean ± SD) for 2D dose comparison was 96.2% ± 2.6% (range, 90-100%). Discrepancies between the measured and calculated dose distributions primarily resulted from the limitation of the model used by the treatment planning system. CONCLUSIONS: We have established a patient-specific QA program for prostate cancer patients receiving SSPT using SFUD.

Evaluation of patient residual deviation and its impact on dose distribution for proton radiotherapy.

The residual deviations after final patient repositioning based on bony anatomy and the impact of such deviations on the proton dose distributions was investigated. Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) and kilovoltage (kV) "portal verification" images from 10 patients treated with passively scattered proton radiotherapy was used to estimate the residual deviation. These changes were then applied to the location of isocenter points that, in effect, moved the isocenter relative to the apertures and compensators. A composite verification plan was obtained and compared with the original clinical treatment plan to evaluate any changes in dose distributions. The residual deviations were fitted to a Gaussian distribution with µ = -0.9 ± 0.1 mm and σ = 2.55 ± 0.07 mm. The dose distribution showed under- and overcovered dose spots with complex dose distributions both in the target volumes and in the organs at risk. In some cases, this amounts to 63.5% above the intended clinical plan. Although patient positioning is carefully verified before treatment delivery and setup uncertainties are accounted for by using compensator smearing and aperture margins, a residual shift in a patient's position can considerably affect the dose distribution.

Verification of patient-specific dose distributions in proton therapy using a commercial two-dimensional ion chamber array.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a two-dimensional (2D) ion chamber array detector quickly and accurately measures patient-specific dose distributions in treatment with passively scattered and spot scanning proton beams. METHODS: The 2D ion chamber array detector MatriXX was used to measure the dose distributions in plastic water phantom from passively scattered and spot scanning proton beam fields planned for patient treatment. Planar dose distributions were measured using MatriXX, and the distributions were compared to those calculated using a treatment-planning system. The dose distributions generated by the treatment-planning system and a film dosimetry system were similarly compared. RESULTS: For passively scattered proton beams, the gamma index for the dose-distribution comparison for treatment fields for three patients with prostate cancer and for one patient with lung cancer was less than 1.0 for 99% and 100% of pixels for a 3% dose tolerance and 3 mm distance-to-dose agreement, respectively. For spot scanning beams, the mean (+/- standard deviation) percentages of pixels with gamma indices meeting the passing criteria were 97.1% +/- 1.4% and 98.8% +/- 1.4% for MatriXX and film dosimetry, respectively, for 20 fields used to treat patients with prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike film dosimetry, MatriXX provides not only 2D dose-distribution information but also absolute dosimetry in fractions of minutes with acceptable accuracy. The results of this study indicate that MatriXX can be used to verify patient-field specific dose distributions in proton therapy.

Energy dependence and dose response of Gafchromic EBT2 film over a wide range of photon, electron, and proton beam energies.

PURPOSE: Since the Gafchromic film EBT has been recently replaced by the newer model EBT2, its characterization, especially energy dependence, has become critically important. The energy dependence of the dose response of Gafchromic EBT2 film is evaluated for a broad range of energies from different radiation sources used in radiation therapy. METHODS: The beams used for this study comprised of kilovoltage x rays (75, 125, and 250 kVp), 137Cs gamma (662 KeV), 60Co gamma (1.17-1.33 MeV), megavoltage x rays (6 and 18 MV), electron beams (6 and 20 MeV), and proton beams (100 and 250 MeV). The film's response to each of the above energies was measured over the dose range of 0.4-10 Gy, which corresponds to optical densities ranging from 0.05 to 0.74 for the film reader used. RESULTS: The energy dependence of EBT2 was found to be relatively small within measurement uncertainties (1 sigma = +/- 4.5%) for all energies and modalities. CONCLUSION: For relative and absolute dosimetry of radiation therapy beams, the weak energy dependence of the EBT2 makes it most suitable for clinical use compared to other films.

Commissioning of the discrete spot scanning proton beam delivery system at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Proton Therapy Center, Houston.

PURPOSE: To describe a summary of the clinical commissioning of the discrete spot scanning proton beam at the Proton Therapy Center, Houston (PTC-H). METHODS: Discrete spot scanning system is composed of a delivery system (Hitachi ProBeat), an electronic medical record (Mosaiq V 1.5), and a treatment planning system (TPS) (Eclipse V 8.1). Discrete proton pencil beams (spots) are used to deposit dose spot by spot and layer by layer for the proton distal ranges spanning from 4.0 to 30.6 g/cm2 and over a maximum scan area at the isocenter of 30 x 30 cm2. An arbitrarily chosen reference calibration condition has been selected to define the monitor units (MUs). Using radiochromic film and ion chambers, the authors have measured spot positions, the spot sizes in air, depth dose curves, and profiles for proton beams with various energies in water, and studied the linearity of the dose monitors. In addition to dosimetric measurements and TPS modeling, significant efforts were spent in testing information flow and recovery of the delivery system from treatment interruptions. RESULTS: The main dose monitors have been adjusted such that a specific amount of charge is collected in the monitor chamber corresponding to a single MU, following the IAEA TRS 398 protocol under a specific reference condition. The dose monitor calibration method is based on the absolute dose per MU, which is equivalent to the absolute dose per particle, the approach used by other scanning beam institutions. The full width at half maximum for the spot size in air varies from approximately 1.2 cm for 221.8 MeV to 3.4 cm for 72.5 MeV. The measured versus requested 90% depth dose in water agrees to within 1 mm over ranges of 4.0-30.6 cm. The beam delivery interlocks perform as expected, guarantying the safe and accurate delivery of the planned dose. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric parameters of the discrete spot scanning proton beam have been measured as part of the clinical commissioning program, and the machine is found to function in a safe manner, making it suitable for patient treatment.

Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators.

The task group (TG) for quality assurance of medical accelerators was constituted by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcome Improvement Subcommittee. The task group (TG-142) had two main charges. First to update, as needed, recommendations of Table II of the AAPM TG-40 report on quality assurance and second, to add recommendations for asymmetric jaws, multileaf collimation (MLC), and dynamic/virtual wedges. The TG accomplished the update to TG-40, specifying new test and tolerances, and has added recommendations for not only the new ancillary delivery technologies but also for imaging devices that are part of the linear accelerator. The imaging devices include x-ray imaging, photon portal imaging, and cone-beam CT. The TG report was designed to account for the types of treatments delivered with the particular machine. For example, machines that are used for radiosurgery treatments or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) require different tests and/or tolerances. There are specific recommendations for MLC quality assurance for machines performing IMRT. The report also gives recommendations as to action levels for the physicists to implement particular actions, whether they are inspection, scheduled action, or immediate and corrective action. The report is geared to be flexible for the physicist to customize the QA program depending on clinical utility. There are specific tables according to daily, monthly, and annual reviews, along with unique tables for wedge systems, MLC, and imaging checks. The report also gives specific recommendations regarding setup of a QA program by the physicist in regards to building a QA team, establishing procedures, training of personnel, documentation, and end-to-end system checks. The tabulated items of this report have been considerably expanded as compared with the original TG-40 report and the recommended tolerances accommodate differences in the intended use of the machine functionality (non-IMRT, IMRT, and stereotactic delivery).

An overview of the comprehensive proton therapy machine quality assurance procedures implemented at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Proton Therapy Center-Houston.

The number of proton and carbon ion therapy centers is increasing; however, since the publication of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements report, there has been no dedicated report dealing with proton therapy quality assurance. The purpose of this article is to describe the quality assurance procedures performed on the passively scattered proton therapy beams at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Proton Therapy Center in Houston. The majorities of these procedures are either adopted from procedures outlined in the American Association of Physicists in Medical Task Group (TG) 40 report or are a modified version of the TG 40 procedures. In addition, new procedures, which were designed specifically to be applicable to the synchrotron at the author's center, have been implemented. The authors' procedures were developed and customized to ensure patient safety and accurate operation of synchrotron to within explicit limits. This article describes these procedures and can be used by others as a guideline for developing QA procedures based on particle accelerator specific parameters and local regulations pertinent to any new facility.

Comparison of surface doses from spot scanning and passively scattered proton therapy beams.

Proton therapy for the treatment of cancer is delivered using either passively scattered or scanning beams. Each technique delivers a different amount of dose to the skin, because of the specific feature of their delivery system. The amount of dose delivered to the skin can play an important role in choosing the delivery technique for a specific site. To assess the differences in skin doses, we measured the surface doses associated with these two techniques. For the purpose of this investigation, the surface doses in a phantom were measured for ten prostate treatment fields planned with passively scattered proton beams and ten patients planned with spot scanning proton beams. The measured doses were compared to evaluate the differences in the amount of skin dose delivered by using these techniques. The results indicate that, on average, the patients treated with spot scanning proton beams received lower skin doses by an amount of 11.8% +/- 0.3% than did the patients treated with passively scattered proton beams. That difference could amount to 4 CGE per field for a prescribed dose of 76 CGE in 38 fractions treated with two equally weighted parallel opposed fields.

A procedure for calculation of monitor units for passively scattered proton radiotherapy beams.

The purpose of this study is to validate a monitor unit (MU) calculation procedure for passively scattered proton therapy beams. The output dose per MU (d/MU) of a therapeutic radiation beam is traditionally calibrated under specific reference conditions. These conditions include beam energy, field size, suitable depth in water or water equivalent phantom in a low dose gradient region with known relative depth dose, and source to point of calibration distance. Treatment field settings usually differ from these reference conditions leading to a different d/MU that needs to be determined for delivering the prescribed dose. For passively scattered proton beams, the proton specific parameters, which need to be defined, are related to the energy, lateral scatterers, range modulating wheel, spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) width, thickness of any range shifter, the depth dose value relative to the normalization point in the SOBP, and scatter both from the range compensator and inhomogeneity in the patient. Following the custom for photons or electrons, a set of proton dosimetry factors, representing the changes in the d/MU relative to a reference condition, can be defined as the relative output factor (ROF), SOBP factor (SOBPF), range shifter factor (RSF), SOBP off-center factor (SOBPOCF), off-center ratio (OCR), inverse square factor (ISF), field size factor (FSF), and compensator and patient scatter factor (CPSF). The ROF, SOBPF, and RSF are the major contributors to the d/MU and were measured using an ion chamber in water tank during the clinical commissioning of each beam to create a dosimetry beam data table to be used for calculating the monitor units. The following simple formula is found to provide an independent method to determine the d/MU at the point of interest (POI) in the patient, namely, (d/MU) = ROF SOBPF. RSF SOBPOCF.OCR.FSF.ISF.CPSF. The monitor units for delivering the intended dose (D) to the POI can be obtained from MU = D / (d/MU). The accuracy and robustness of the above formula were validated by calculating the d/MU in water for many different combinations of beam parameters and comparing it with the corresponding measured d/MU by an ion chamber in a water or water/plastic phantom. This procedure has been in use for MU calculation for patient treatment fields at our facility since May 2006. The differences in the calculated and measured values of the d/MU for 623 distinct fields used for patient treatment during the period of May 2006 to February 2007 are within 2% for 99% of these fields. The authors conclude that an intuitive formula similar to the one used for monitor unit calculation of therapeutic photon beams can be used to compute the monitor units of passively scattered proton therapy beams.

Use of a two-dimensional ionization chamber array for proton therapy beam quality assurance.

Two-dimensional ion chamber arrays are primarily used for conventional and intensity modulated radiotherapy quality assurance. There is no commercial device of such type available on the market that is offered for proton therapy quality assurance. We have investigated suitability of the MatriXX, a commercial two-dimensional ion chamber array detector for proton therapy QA. This device is designed to be used for photon and electron therapy QA. The device is equipped with 32 x 32 parallel plate ion chambers, each with 4.5 mm diam and 7.62 mm center-to-center separation. A 250 MeV proton beam was used to calibrate the dose measured by this device. The water equivalent thickness of the buildup material was determined to be 3.9 mm using a 160 MeV proton beam. Proton beams of different energies were used to measure the reproducibility of dose output and to evaluate the consistency in the beam flatness and symmetry measured by MatriXX. The output measurement results were compared with the clinical commissioning beam data that were obtained using a 0.6 cc Farmer chamber. The agreement was consistently found to be within 1%. The profiles were compared with film dosimetry and also with ion chamber data in water with an excellent agreement. The device is found to be well suited for quality assurance of proton therapy beams. It provides fast two-dimensional dose distribution information in real time with the accuracy comparable to that of ion chamber measurements and film dosimetry.