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.

Proton Beam Range and Charge Verification Using Multilayer Faraday Collector.

PURPOSE: A daily quality assurance (QA) check in proton therapy is ensuring that the range of each proton beam energy in water is accurate to 1 mm. This is important for ensuring that the tumor is adequately irradiated while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissue. It is also important to verify the total charge collected against the beam model. This work proposes a time-efficient method for verifying the range and total charge of proton beams at different energies using a multilayer Faraday collector (MLFC). METHODS: We used an MLFC-128-250 MeV comprising 128 layers of thin copper foils separated by thin insulating KaptonTM layers. Protons passing through the collector induce a charge on the metallic foils, which is integrated and measured by a multichannel electrometer. The charge deposition on the foils provides information about the beam range. RESULTS: Our results show that the proton beam range obtained using MLFC correlates closely with the range obtained from commissioning water tank measurements for all proton energies. Upon applying a range calibration factor, the maximum deviation is 0.4 g/cm2. The MLFC range showed no dependence on the number of monitor units and the source-to-surface distance. Range measurements collected over multiple weeks exhibited stability. The total charge collected agrees closely with the theoretical charge from the treatment planning system beam model for low- and mid-range energies. CONCLUSIONS: We have calibrated and commissioned the use of the MLFC to easily verify range and total charge of proton beams. This tool will improve the workflow efficiency of the proton QA.

A treatment-site-specific evaluation of commercial synthetic computed tomography solutions for proton therapy.

Background and purpose: Despite the superior dose conformity of proton therapy, the dose distribution is sensitive to daily anatomical changes, which can affect treatment accuracy. This study evaluated the dose recalculation accuracy of two synthetic computed tomography (sCT) generation algorithms in a commercial treatment planning system. Materials and methods: The evaluation was conducted for head-and-neck, thorax-and-abdomen, and pelvis sites treated with proton therapy. Thirty patients with two cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans each were selected. The sCT images were generated from CBCT scans using two algorithms, Corrected CBCT (corrCBCT) and Virtual CT (vCT). Dose recalculations were performed based on these images for comparison with "ground truth" deformed CTs. Results: The choice of algorithm influenced dose recalculation accuracy, particularly in high dose regions. For head-and-neck cases, the corrCBCT method showed closer agreement with the "ground truth", while for thorax-and-abdomen and pelvis cases, the vCT algorithm yielded better results (mean percentage dose discrepancy of 0.6 %, 1.3 % and 0.5 % for the three sites, respectively, in the high dose region). Head-and-neck and pelvis cases exhibited excellent agreement in high dose regions (2 %/2 mm gamma passing rate >98 %), while thorax-and-abdomen cases exhibited the largest differences, suggesting caution in sCT algorithm usage for this site. Significant systematic differences were observed in the clinical target volume and organ-at-risk doses in head-and-neck and pelvis cases, highlighting the importance of using the correct algorithm. Conclusions: This study provided treatment site-specific recommendations for sCT algorithm selection in proton therapy. The findings offered insights for proton beam centers implementing adaptive radiotherapy workflows.

First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This work introduces the first assessment of CT calibration following the ESTRO's consensus guidelines and validating the HLUT through the irradiation of biological material. METHODS: Two electron density phantoms were scanned with two CT scanners using two CT scan energies. The stopping power ratio (SPR) and mass density (MD) HLUTs for different CT scan energies were derived using Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. The comparison metric in this work is based on the Water-Equivalent Thickness (WET) difference between the treatment planning system and biological irradiation measurement. The SPR HLUTs were compared between the two calibration methods. To assess the accuracy of using MD HLUT for dose calculation in the treatment planning system, MD vs SPR HLUT was compared. Lastly, the feasibility of using a single SPR HLUT to replace two different energy CT scans was explored. RESULTS: The results show a WET difference of less than 3.5% except for the result in the Bone region between Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. Comparing MD and SPR HLUT, the results from MD HLUT show less than a 3.5% difference except for the Bone region. However, the SPR HLUT shows a lower mean absolute percentage difference as compared to MD HLUT between the measured and calculated WET difference. Lastly, it is possible to use a single SPR HLUT for two different CT scan energies since both WET differences are within 3.5%. CONCLUSION: This is the first report on calibrating an HLUT following the ESTRO's guidelines. While our result shows incremental improvement in range uncertainty using the ESTRO's guideline, the prescriptional approach of the guideline does promote harmonization of CT calibration protocols between different centres.

The effect of spill change on reliable absolute dosimetry in a synchrotron proton spot scanning system.

BACKGROUND: Absolute dosimetry measurement is an integral part of Treatment Planning System (TPS) commissioning and it involves measuring the integrated absorbed dose to water for all energies in a pencil beam scanning delivery system. During the commissioning of Singapore's first proton therapy center, a uniform scanned field with an Advanced Markus chamber method was employed for this measurement, and a large dose fluctuation of at least 5% was observed for 10% of the energy layers during repeated measurements. PURPOSE: This study aims to understand the root cause of this fluctuation by relating the actual delivered spot information in the log file with the charge measurement by the ion chambers. METHODS: A dedicated pencil beam dose algorithm was developed, taking into account the log file parameters, to calculate the dose for a single energy layer in a homogeneous water phantom. Three energies, 70.2, 182.7, and 228.7 MeV were used in this study, with the 182.7 MeV energy exhibiting large dose fluctuation. The dose fluctuation was investigated as a function of detector's sizes (pinpoint 3D, Advanced Markus, PTW 34070, and PTW 34089) and water depth (2 , 6, and 20 cm). Twelve ion chambers measurements were performed for each chamber and depth. The comparison of the theoretically predicted integrated dose and the charge measurement served as a validation of the algorithm. RESULTS: About 5.9% and 9.6% dose fluctuation were observed in Advanced Markus and pinpoint 3D measurements at 2 cm depth for 182.7 MeV, while fluctuation of 1.6% and 1.1% were observed in Advanced Markus with 228.7 and 70.2 MeV at similar depth. Fluctuation of less than 0.1% was observed for PTW34070 and PTW 34089 for all energies. The fluctuation was found to diminish with larger spot size at 20 cm depth to 1.3% for 182.7 MeV. The theoretical and measured charge comparison showed a high linear correlation of R 2 > 0.80 ${R^2} > 0.80$ for all datasets, indicating the fluctuation originated from the delivered spot characteristics. The cause of fluctuation was identified to be due to the spill change occurring close to the detector, and since the spot positional deviation profiles were different between two spills, this resulted in local hot spots between columns of spots. The actual position of spill change varies randomly during measurement, which led to a random occurrence of hot spot within the detector's sensitive volume and a fluctuating dose measurement. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of a dose fluctuation greater than 5% in absolute dosimetry measurement with a uniform scanned field and the cause of the fluctuation has been conclusively determined. It is important to choose the MU and scanning pattern carefully to avoid spill change happening when the spot delivery is near the detector.

Implementing dispersion measurement as part of scanning proton therapy commissioning and quality assurance.

Introduction. Dispersion in an accelerator quantifies the deviation of the proton trajectory when there is a momentum deviation. We present for the first time a safe method of measuring dispersion in the clinic, using a scintillator detector and the momentum deviations within a spill. This is an important accelerator quantity as we found that this is the reason behind the large dose fluctuation in our absolute dosimetry measurement.Methods. Dispersions are measured for nine energies in a Hitachi ProBeat system at three locations (isocenter and at two profile monitors) and at two gantry angles (0 and 90 degrees) by first measuring the spot position and momentum drift within a spill. The spot position drift is measured by the XRV-4000 at the isocenter, and by the two profile monitors located at 0.57 and 2.27 m from the isocenter. The momentum drift is calculated from the intra-spill range drift which is measured using the Ranger accessory. The dispersion at isocenter and its gradient are calculated using the weighted least square regression on the measured dispersions at the three locations. A constraint is formulated on the dispersion and its gradient to ensure minimal intra-spill spot position deviation around the isocenter.Results. The measured intra-spill range and spot positional drift at isocenter are less than0.25mmand0.7mmrespectively. The momentum spread calculated from the range drift are less than 0.08%. The dispersion at the isocenter ranged from0.50to4.30mand the zero-crossing happens upstream of isocenter for all energies. 2 of the 9 energies (168.0 and 187.5 MeV) violated the constraint and has an intra-spill spot positional deviation greater than1.0within5cmfrom the isocenter.Conclusion. This measurement is recommended as part of commissioning and annual quality assurance for accelerator monitoring and to ensure intra-spill spot deviations remain low.