Comparison of translation algorithms in determining maximum allowable CTV shifts for Real-Time Gated Proton Therapy (RGPT) robustness evaluation in prostate cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Real-Time Gated Proton Therapy (RGPT) is an active motion management technique that utilizes treatment gating and tumor tracking via fiducial markers. When performing RGPT treatment for prostate cancer, it is essential to account for the CTV displacement relative to the body in the clinical workflow. The workflow at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) includes bone matching via CT-CBCT images, followed by fiducial matching via pulsed fluoroscopy (soft tissue matching), and finally, a robustness evaluation procedure to determine if the difference is within an allowable tolerance. In this study, we compare two CTV translation methods for robustness evaluation: (1) an in-house translation algorithm and (2) the RayStation "simulate organ motion" Deformable image registration (DIR) algorithm. METHODS: Nine RGPT prostate patient plans with CTV volumes ranging from 17.1 to 96.72 cm2 were included in this study. An in-house translation algorithm and "simulate organ motion" DIR RayStation algorithm were used to generate CTV shifts along R-L, I-S, and P-A axes between ± $ \pm $ 10 mm at 2 mm steps. At each step, dose metrics, which include CTV Dmax, CTV D95%, and CTV D98%, were extracted and used as comparative metrics for CTV target coverage and hot spot evaluation. RESULTS: Across all axes, there were no statistically significant differences between the two algorithms for all three dose metrics: CTV Dmax (P = 0.92, P = 0.91, and P = 0.47), CTV D95% (P = 0.97, P = 0.22, and P = 0.33), and CTV D98% (P = 0.85, P = 0.33, and P = 0.36). Further, the in-house translation algorithm evaluation time was less than 10 s, two orders of magnitude faster than the DIR algorithm. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the simpler in-house algorithm performs equivalently to the realistic DIR algorithm when simulating CTV motion in prostate cancers. Furthermore, the in-house algorithm completes the robustness evaluation two orders of magnitude faster than the DIR algorithm. This significant reduction in evaluation time is crucial especially when preparatory time efficiency is of paramount importance in a busy clinic.

Repurposing DailyQA3 for an efficient and spot position sensitive daily quality assurance tool for proton therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Daily quality assurance is an integral part of a radiotherapy workflow to ensure the dose is delivered safely and accurately to the patient. It is performed before the first treatment of the day and needs to be time and cost efficient for a multiple gantries proton center. In this study, we introduced an efficient method to perform QA for output constancy, range verification, spot positioning accuracy and imaging and proton beam isocenter coincidence with DailyQA3. METHODS: A stepped acrylic block of specific dimensions is fabricated and placed on top of the DailyQA3 device. Treatment plans comprising of two different spread-out Bragg peaks and five individual spots of 1.0 MU each are designed to be delivered to the device. A mathematical framework to measure the 2D distance between the detectors and individual spot is introduced and play an important role in realizing the spot positioning and centering QA. Lastly, a 5 months trends of the QA for two gantries are presented. RESULTS: The outputs are monitored by two ion chambers in the DailyQA3 and a tolerance of ± 3 % $ \pm 3\% $ are used. The range of the SOBPs are monitored by the ratio of ion chamber signals and a tolerance of ± 1 mm $ \pm 1\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ is used. Four diodes at ± 10 cm $ \pm 10\ {\mathrm{cm}}$ from the central ion chambers are used for spot positioning QA, while the central ion chamber is used for imaging and proton beam isocenter coincidence QA. Using the framework, we determined the absolute signal threshold corresponding to the offset tolerance between the individual proton spot and the detector. A 1.5 mm $1.5\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ tolerances are used for both the positioning and centering QA. No violation of the tolerances is observed in the 5 months trends for both gantries. CONCLUSION: With the proposed approach, we can perform four QA items in the TG224 within 10 min.

Real-time gated proton therapy with a reduced source to imager distance: Commissioning and quality assurance.

INTRODUCTION: Real-time gated proton therapy (RGPT) is a motion management technique unique to the Hitachi particle therapy system. It uses pulsed fluoroscopy to track an implanted fiducial marker. There are currently no published guidelines on how to conduct the commissioning and quality assurance. In this work we reported on our centre's commissioning workflow and our daily and monthly QA procedures. METHODS: Six commissioning measurements were designed for RGPT. The measurements include imaging qualities, fluoroscopic exposures, RGPT marker tracking accuracy, temporal gating latency, fiducial marker tracking fidelity and an end-to-end proton dosimetry measurement. Daily QA consists of one measurement on marker localization accuracy. Four months daily QA trends are presented. Monthly QA consists of three measurementson the gating latency, fluoroscopy imaging quality and dosimetry verification of gating operation with RGPT. RESULTS: The RGPT was successfully commissioned in our centre. The air kerma rates were within 15 % from specifications and the marker tracking accuracies were within 0.245 mm. The gating latencies for turning the proton beam on and off were 119.5 and 50.0 ms respectively. The 0.4x10.0 mm2 Gold AnchorTM gave the best tracking results with visibility up to 30 g/cm2. Gamma analysis showed that dose distribution of a moving and static detectors had a passing rate of more than 95 % at 3 %/3mm. The daily marker localization QA results were all less than 0.2 mm. CONCLUSION: This work could serve as a good reference for other upcoming Hitachi particle therapy centres who are interested to use RGPT as their motion management solution.