Development of a golden beam data set for the commissioning of a proton double-scattering system in a pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm

Journal Article · Mon Sep 15 00:00:00 EDT 2014 · Medical Physics

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4893281· OSTI ID:22409543

Flampouri, S.; Yeung, D.; Li, Z. ^[1]; Lin, L.; McDonough, J. E. ^[2]; Palta, J. ^[3]

---

1. University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, 2015 North Jefferson Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32205 (United States)
2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Boulevard, 2326W TRC, PCAM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 (United States)
3. VCU Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, 401 College Street, Richmond, Virginia 23298 (United States)

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation is to determine if a single set of beam data, described by a minimal set of equations and fitting variables, can be used to commission different installations of a proton double-scattering system in a commercial pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm. Methods: The beam model parameters required to commission the pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm (virtual and effective SAD, effective source size, and pristine-peak energy spread) are determined for a commercial double-scattering system. These parameters are measured in a first room and parameterized as function of proton energy and nozzle settings by fitting four analytical equations to the measured data. The combination of these equations and fitting values constitutes the golden beam data (GBD). To determine the variation in dose delivery between installations, the same dosimetric properties are measured in two additional rooms at the same facility, as well as in a single room at another facility. The difference between the room-specific measurements and the GBD is evaluated against tolerances that guarantee the 3D dose distribution in each of the rooms matches the GBD-based dose distribution within clinically reasonable limits. The pencil-beam treatment-planning algorithm is commissioned with the GBD. The three-dimensional dose distribution in water is evaluated in the four treatment rooms and compared to the treatment-planning calculated dose distribution. Results: The virtual and effective SAD measurements fall between 226 and 257 cm. The effective source size varies between 2.4 and 6.2 cm for the large-field options, and 1.0 and 2.0 cm for the small-field options. The pristine-peak energy spread decreases from 1.05% at the lowest range to 0.6% at the highest. The virtual SAD as well as the effective source size can be accurately described by a linear relationship as function of the inverse of the residual energy. An additional linear correction term as function of RM-step thickness is required for accurate parameterization of the effective SAD. The GBD energy spread is given by a linear function of the exponential of the beam energy. Except for a few outliers, the measured parameters match the GBD within the specified tolerances in all of the four rooms investigated. For a SOBP field with a range of 15 g/cm{sup 2} and an air gap of 25 cm, the maximum difference in the 80%–20% lateral penumbra between the GBD-commissioned treatment-planning system and measurements in any of the four rooms is 0.5 mm. Conclusions: The beam model parameters of the double-scattering system can be parameterized with a limited set of equations and parameters. This GBD closely matches the measured dosimetric properties in four different rooms.

• OSTI ID: 22409543
• Journal Information: Medical Physics, Vol. 41, Issue 9; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0094-2405
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS
ALGORITHMS
COMMISSIONING
PLANNING
PROTON BEAMS
RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS
SCATTERING