skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Comparison of two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam

Abstract

Purpose: Delayed charge is a small amount of charge that is delivered to the patient after the planned irradiation is halted, which may degrade the quality of the treatment by delivering unwarranted dose to the patient. This study compares two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam. Methods: The delivery of several treatment plans was simulated by applying a normally distributed value of delayed charge, with a mean of 0.001(SD 0.00025) MU, to each spot. Two correction methods were used to account for the delayed charge. Method one (CM1), which is in active clinical use, accounts for the delayed charge by adjusting the MU of the current spot based on the cumulative MU. Method two (CM2) in addition reduces the planned MU by a predicted value. Every fraction of a treatment was simulated using each method and then recomputed in the treatment planning system. The dose difference between the original plan and the sum of the simulated fractions was evaluated. Both methods were tested in a water phantom with a single beam and simple target geometry. Two separate phantom tests were performed. In one test themore » dose per fraction was varied from 0.5 to 2 Gy using 25 fractions per plan. In the other test the number fractions were varied from 1 to 25, using 2 Gy per fraction. Three patient plans were used to determine the effect of delayed charge on the delivered dose under realistic clinical conditions. The order of spot delivery using CM1 was investigated by randomly selecting the starting spot for each layer, and by alternating per layer the starting spot from first to last. Only discrete spot scanning was considered in this study. Results: Using the phantom setup and varying the dose per fraction, the maximum dose difference for each plan of 25 fractions was 0.37–0.39 Gy and 0.03–0.05 Gy for CM1 and CM2, respectively. While varying the total number of fractions, the maximum dose difference increased at a rate of 0.015 Gy and 0.0018 Gy per fraction for CM1 and CM2, respectively. For CM1, the largest dose difference was found at the location of the first spot in each energy layer, whereas for CM2 the difference in dose was small and showed no dependence on location. For CM1, all of the fields in the patient plans had an area where their excess dose overlapped. No such correlation was found when using CM2. Randomly selecting the starting spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.15 Gy. Alternating between first and last spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.37 Gy. In the patient plans the excess dose scaled linearly at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1 and standard delivery order. Conclusions: The predictive model CM2 is superior to a cumulative irradiation model CM1 for minimizing the effects of delayed charge, particularly when considering maximal dose discrepancies and the potential for unplanned hot-spots. This study shows that the dose discrepancy potentially scales at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, Minnesota 55905 (United States)
  2. Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, Arizona 85054 (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22409867
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 8; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; IRRADIATION; PATIENTS; PHANTOMS; PLANNING; PROTON BEAMS; RADIATION DOSES; SYNCHROTRONS

Citation Formats

Whitaker, Thomas J., E-mail: whitaker.thomas@mayo.edu, Beltran, Chris, Tryggestad, Erik, Kruse, Jon J., Remmes, Nicholas B., Tasson, Alexandria, Herman, Michael G., and Bues, Martin. Comparison of two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4885961.
Whitaker, Thomas J., E-mail: whitaker.thomas@mayo.edu, Beltran, Chris, Tryggestad, Erik, Kruse, Jon J., Remmes, Nicholas B., Tasson, Alexandria, Herman, Michael G., & Bues, Martin. Comparison of two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4885961.
Whitaker, Thomas J., E-mail: whitaker.thomas@mayo.edu, Beltran, Chris, Tryggestad, Erik, Kruse, Jon J., Remmes, Nicholas B., Tasson, Alexandria, Herman, Michael G., and Bues, Martin. Fri . "Comparison of two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4885961.
@article{osti_22409867,
title = {Comparison of two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam},
author = {Whitaker, Thomas J., E-mail: whitaker.thomas@mayo.edu and Beltran, Chris and Tryggestad, Erik and Kruse, Jon J. and Remmes, Nicholas B. and Tasson, Alexandria and Herman, Michael G. and Bues, Martin},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Delayed charge is a small amount of charge that is delivered to the patient after the planned irradiation is halted, which may degrade the quality of the treatment by delivering unwarranted dose to the patient. This study compares two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam. Methods: The delivery of several treatment plans was simulated by applying a normally distributed value of delayed charge, with a mean of 0.001(SD 0.00025) MU, to each spot. Two correction methods were used to account for the delayed charge. Method one (CM1), which is in active clinical use, accounts for the delayed charge by adjusting the MU of the current spot based on the cumulative MU. Method two (CM2) in addition reduces the planned MU by a predicted value. Every fraction of a treatment was simulated using each method and then recomputed in the treatment planning system. The dose difference between the original plan and the sum of the simulated fractions was evaluated. Both methods were tested in a water phantom with a single beam and simple target geometry. Two separate phantom tests were performed. In one test the dose per fraction was varied from 0.5 to 2 Gy using 25 fractions per plan. In the other test the number fractions were varied from 1 to 25, using 2 Gy per fraction. Three patient plans were used to determine the effect of delayed charge on the delivered dose under realistic clinical conditions. The order of spot delivery using CM1 was investigated by randomly selecting the starting spot for each layer, and by alternating per layer the starting spot from first to last. Only discrete spot scanning was considered in this study. Results: Using the phantom setup and varying the dose per fraction, the maximum dose difference for each plan of 25 fractions was 0.37–0.39 Gy and 0.03–0.05 Gy for CM1 and CM2, respectively. While varying the total number of fractions, the maximum dose difference increased at a rate of 0.015 Gy and 0.0018 Gy per fraction for CM1 and CM2, respectively. For CM1, the largest dose difference was found at the location of the first spot in each energy layer, whereas for CM2 the difference in dose was small and showed no dependence on location. For CM1, all of the fields in the patient plans had an area where their excess dose overlapped. No such correlation was found when using CM2. Randomly selecting the starting spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.15 Gy. Alternating between first and last spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.37 Gy. In the patient plans the excess dose scaled linearly at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1 and standard delivery order. Conclusions: The predictive model CM2 is superior to a cumulative irradiation model CM1 for minimizing the effects of delayed charge, particularly when considering maximal dose discrepancies and the potential for unplanned hot-spots. This study shows that the dose discrepancy potentially scales at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4885961},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 8,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Aug 15 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Fri Aug 15 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}
  • Purpose: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has been shown to be able to reduce dose to normal tissue compared to intensity modulated photon radio-therapy (IMRT), and has been implemented for selected lung cancer patients. However, respiratory motion-induced dose uncertainty remain one of the major concerns for the radiotherapy of lung cancer, and the utility of IMPT for lung patients was limited because of the proton dose uncertainty induced by motion. Strategies such as repainting and tumor tracking have been proposed and studied but repainting could result in unacceptable long delivery time and tracking is not yet clinically available. We proposemore » a novel delivery strategy for spot scanning proton beam therapy. Method: The effective number of delivery (END) for each spot position in a treatment plan was calculated based on the parameters of the delivery system, including time required for each spot, spot size and energy. The dose uncertainty was then calculated with an analytical formula. The spot delivery sequence was optimized to maximize END and minimize the dose uncertainty. 2D Measurements with a detector array on a 1D moving platform were performed to validate the calculated results. Results: 143 2D measurements on a moving platform were performed for different delivery sequences of a single layer uniform pattern. The measured dose uncertainty is a strong function of the delivery sequence, the worst delivery sequence results in dose error up to 70% while the optimized delivery sequence results in dose error of <5%. END vs. measured dose uncertainty follows the analytical formula. Conclusion: With optimized delivery sequence, it is feasible to minimize the dose uncertainty due to motion in spot scanning proton therapy.« less
  • Purpose: This study provides an overview of the design and commissioning of the Monte Carlo (MC) model of the spot-scanning proton therapy nozzle and its implementation for the patient plan simulation. Methods: The Hitachi PROBEAT V scanning nozzle was simulated based on vendor specifications using the TOPAS extension of Geant4 code. FLUKA MC simulation was also utilized to provide supporting data for the main simulation. Validation of the MC model was performed using vendor provided data and measurements collected during acceptance/commissioning of the proton therapy machine. Actual patient plans using CT based treatment geometry were simulated and compared to themore » dose distributions produced by the treatment planning system (Varian Eclipse 13.6), and patient quality assurance measurements. In-house MATLAB scripts are used for converting DICOM data into TOPAS input files. Results: Comparison analysis of integrated depth doses (IDDs), therapeutic ranges (R90), and spot shape/sizes at different distances from the isocenter, indicate good agreement between MC and measurements. R90 agreement is within 0.15 mm across all energy tunes. IDDs and spot shapes/sizes differences are within statistical error of simulation (less than 1.5%). The MC simulated data, validated with physical measurements, were used for the commissioning of the treatment planning system. Patient geometry simulations were conducted based on the Eclipse produced DICOM plans. Conclusion: The treatment nozzle and standard option beam model were implemented in the TOPAS framework to simulate a highly conformal discrete spot-scanning proton beam system.« less
  • Purpose: To build the model of a spot scanning proton beam for the dose calculation of a synchrotron proton therapy accelerator, which is capable of accelerating protons from 50 up to 221 MeV. Methods: The spot scanning beam nozzle is modeled using TOPAS code, a simulation tool based on Geant4.9.6. The model contained a beam pipe vacuum window, a beam profile monitor, a drift chamber, two plane-parallel ionization chambers, and a spot-position monitor consisted of a multiwire ionization chamber. A water phantom is located with its upstream surface at the isocenter plane. The initial proton beam energy and anglar deflectionmore » are modeled using a Gaussian distribution with FWHM (Full Widths at Half Maximum) deponding on its beam energy. The phase space file (PSF) on a virtual surface located at the center between the two magnets is recorded. PSF is used to analyze the pencil beam features and offset the pencil beam position. The source model parameters are verificated by fitting the simulated Result to the measurement. Results: The simulated percentage depth dose (PDD) and lateral profiles of scanning pencil beams of various incident proton energies are verificated to the measurement. Generally the distance to agreement (DTA) of Bragg peaks is less than 0.2cm. The FWHM of Gaussian anglar distribution was adjusted to fit the lateral profile difference between the simulation and the measurement to less than 2∼3cm. Conclusion: A Monte Carlo model of a spot scanning proton beam was bullt based on a synchrotron proton therapy accelerator. This scanning pencil beam model will be as a block to build the broad proton beam as a proton TPS dose verification tool.« less
  • 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/cm{sup 2} and over a maximum scan area at the isocenter of 30x30 cm{sup 2}. An arbitrarily chosen reference calibration conditionmore » 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.« less
  • Purpose: To develop and validate a novel delivery strategy for reducing the respiratory motion–induced dose uncertainty of spot-scanning proton therapy. Methods and Materials: The spot delivery sequence was optimized to reduce dose uncertainty. The effectiveness of the delivery sequence optimization was evaluated using measurements and patient simulation. One hundred ninety-one 2-dimensional measurements using different delivery sequences of a single-layer uniform pattern were obtained with a detector array on a 1-dimensional moving platform. Intensity modulated proton therapy plans were generated for 10 lung cancer patients, and dose uncertainties for different delivery sequences were evaluated by simulation. Results: Without delivery sequence optimization,more » the maximum absolute dose error can be up to 97.2% in a single measurement, whereas the optimized delivery sequence results in a maximum absolute dose error of ≤11.8%. In patient simulation, the optimized delivery sequence reduces the mean of fractional maximum absolute dose error compared with the regular delivery sequence by 3.3% to 10.6% (32.5-68.0% relative reduction) for different patients. Conclusions: Optimizing the delivery sequence can reduce dose uncertainty due to respiratory motion in spot-scanning proton therapy, assuming the 4-dimensional CT is a true representation of the patients' breathing patterns.« less