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

Title: SU-E-T-641: Proton Range Measurements Using a Geometrically Calibrated Liquid Scintillator Detector

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this work is to develop a geometric calibration method to accurately calculate physical distances within a liquid scintillator detector and to assess the accuracy, consistency, and robustness of proton beam range measurements when using a liquid scintillator detector system with the proposed geometric calibration process. Methods: We developed a geometric calibration procedure to accurately convert pixel locations in the camera frame into physical locations in the scintillator frame. To ensure accuracy, the geometric calibration was performed before each experiment. The liquid scintillator was irradiated with spot scanning proton beams of 94 energies in two deliveries. A CCD camera was used to capture the two-dimensional scintillation light profile of each of the proton energies. An algorithm was developed to automatically calculate the proton range from the acquired images. The measured range was compared to the nominal range to assess the accuracy of the detector. To evaluate the robustness of the detector between each setup, the experiments were repeated on three different days. To evaluate the consistency of the measurements between deliveries, three sets of measurements were acquired for each experiment. Results: Using this geometric calibration procedure, the proton beam ranges measured using the liquid scintillator system weremore » all within 0.3mm of the nominal range. The average difference between the measured and nominal ranges was −0.20mm. The delivery-to-delivery standard deviation of the proton range measurement was 0.04mm, and the setup-to-setup standard deviation of the measurement was 0.10mm. Conclusion: The liquid scintillator system can measure the range of all 94 beams in just two deliveries. With the proposed geometric calibration, it can measure proton range with sub-millimeter accuracy, and the measurements were shown to be consistent between deliveries and setups. Therefore, we conclude that the liquid scintillator system provides a reliable and convenient tool for proton range measurement. This project was supported in part by award number CA182450 from the National Cancer Institute.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22538150
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ACCURACY; BEAM POSITION; CALIBRATION; DELIVERY; GEOMETRY; PROTON BEAMS; SCINTILLATION COUNTERS

Citation Formats

Hui, C, Robertson, D, Alsanea, F, and Beddar, S. SU-E-T-641: Proton Range Measurements Using a Geometrically Calibrated Liquid Scintillator Detector. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4925004.
Hui, C, Robertson, D, Alsanea, F, & Beddar, S. SU-E-T-641: Proton Range Measurements Using a Geometrically Calibrated Liquid Scintillator Detector. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925004.
Hui, C, Robertson, D, Alsanea, F, and Beddar, S. Mon . "SU-E-T-641: Proton Range Measurements Using a Geometrically Calibrated Liquid Scintillator Detector". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925004.
@article{osti_22538150,
title = {SU-E-T-641: Proton Range Measurements Using a Geometrically Calibrated Liquid Scintillator Detector},
author = {Hui, C and Robertson, D and Alsanea, F and Beddar, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The purpose of this work is to develop a geometric calibration method to accurately calculate physical distances within a liquid scintillator detector and to assess the accuracy, consistency, and robustness of proton beam range measurements when using a liquid scintillator detector system with the proposed geometric calibration process. Methods: We developed a geometric calibration procedure to accurately convert pixel locations in the camera frame into physical locations in the scintillator frame. To ensure accuracy, the geometric calibration was performed before each experiment. The liquid scintillator was irradiated with spot scanning proton beams of 94 energies in two deliveries. A CCD camera was used to capture the two-dimensional scintillation light profile of each of the proton energies. An algorithm was developed to automatically calculate the proton range from the acquired images. The measured range was compared to the nominal range to assess the accuracy of the detector. To evaluate the robustness of the detector between each setup, the experiments were repeated on three different days. To evaluate the consistency of the measurements between deliveries, three sets of measurements were acquired for each experiment. Results: Using this geometric calibration procedure, the proton beam ranges measured using the liquid scintillator system were all within 0.3mm of the nominal range. The average difference between the measured and nominal ranges was −0.20mm. The delivery-to-delivery standard deviation of the proton range measurement was 0.04mm, and the setup-to-setup standard deviation of the measurement was 0.10mm. Conclusion: The liquid scintillator system can measure the range of all 94 beams in just two deliveries. With the proposed geometric calibration, it can measure proton range with sub-millimeter accuracy, and the measurements were shown to be consistent between deliveries and setups. Therefore, we conclude that the liquid scintillator system provides a reliable and convenient tool for proton range measurement. This project was supported in part by award number CA182450 from the National Cancer Institute.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4925004},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: Liquid scintillators have been shown to provide fast and high-resolution measurements of radiation beams. However, their linear energy transfer-dependent response (quenching) limits their use in proton beams. The purpose of this study was to develop a simple and fast method to verify the range, spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) width, and output of a passive-scattering proton beam with a liquid scintillator detector, without the need for quenching correction. Methods: The light signal from a 20×20×20 cm3 liquid scintillator tank was collected with a CCD camera. Reproducible landmarks on the SOBP depth-light curve were identified which possessed a linear relationship withmore » the beam range and SOBP width. The depth-light profiles for three beam energies (140, 160 and 180 MeV) with six SOBP widths at each energy were measured with the detector. Beam range and SOBP width calibration factors were obtained by comparing the depth-light curve landmarks with the nominal range and SOBP width for each beam setting. The daily output stability of the liquid scintillator detector was also studied by making eight repeated output measurements in a cobalt-60 beam over the course of two weeks. Results: The mean difference between the measured and nominal beam ranges was 0.6 mm (σ=0.2 mm), with a maximum difference of 0.9 mm. The mean difference between the measured and nominal SOBP widths was 0.1 mm (σ=1.8 mm), with a maximum difference of 4.0 mm. Finally an output variation of 0.14% was observed for 8 measurements performed over 2 weeks. Conclusion: A method has been developed to determine the range and SOBP width of a passive-scattering proton beam in a liquid scintillator without the need for quenching correction. In addition to providing rapid and accurate beam range and SOBP measurements, the detector is capable of measuring the output consistency with a high degree of precision. This project was supported in part by award number CA182450 from the National Cancer Institute.« less
  • Purpose: There have been several reports of enhanced cell-killing and tumor regression when tumor cells and mouse tumors were loaded with gold nanoparticles (GNPs) prior to proton irradiation. While particle-induced xray emission (PIXE), Auger electrons, secondary electrons, free radicals, and biological effects have been suggested as potential mechanisms responsible for the observed GNP-mediated dose enhancement/radiosensitization, there is a lack of quantitative analysis regarding the contribution from each mechanism. Here, we report our experimental effort to quantify some of these effects. Methods: 5-cm-long cylindrical plastic vials were filled with 1.8 mL of either water or water mixed with cylindrical GNPs atmore » the same gold concentration (0.3 mg Au/g) as used in previous animal studies. A piece of EBT2 radiochromic film (30-µm active-layer sandwiched between 80/175-µm outer-layers) was inserted along the long axis of each vial and used to measure dose enhancement due to PIXE from GNPs. Vials were placed at center-of-modulation (COM) and 3-cm up-/down-stream from COM and irradiated with 5 different doses (2–10 Gy) using 10-cm-SOBP 160-MeV protons. After irradiation, films were cleaned and read to determine the delivered dose. A vial containing spherical GNPs (20 mg Au/g) was also irradiated, and gamma-rays from activation products were measured using a cadmium-telluride (CdTe) detector. Results: Film measurements showed no significant dose enhancement beyond the experimental uncertainty (∼2%). There was a detectable activation product from GNPs, but it appeared to contribute to dose enhancement minimally (<0.01%). Conclusion: Considering the composition of EBT2 film, it can be inferred that gold characteristic x-rays from PIXE and their secondary electrons make insignificant contribution to dose enhancement. The current investigation also suggests negligible dose enhancement due to activation products. Thus, previously-reported GNP-mediated proton dose enhancement/radiosensitization needs to be attributed to one or more of the other mechanisms listed earlier. Supported in part by NIH/NCI grant R01CA155446;This investigation was supported in part by NIH/NCI grant R01CA155446.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy in total scatter factor (Sc,p) determination for small fields using commercial plastic scintillator detector (PSD). The manufacturer's spectral discrimination method to subtract Cerenkov light from the signal is discussed. Methods: Sc,p for field sizes ranging from 0.5 to 10 cm were measured using PSD Exradin (Standard Imaging) connected to two channel electrometer measuring the signals in two different spectral regions to subtract the Cerenkov signal from the PSD signal. A Pinpoint ionisation chamber 31006 (PTW) and a non-shielded semiconductor detector EFD (Scanditronix) were used for comparison. Measures were performed for a 6 MV X-ray beam.more » The Sc,p are measured at 10 cm depth in water for a SSD=100 cm and normalized to a 10'10 cm{sup 2} field size at the isocenter. All detectors were placed with their symmetry axis parallel to the beam axis.We followed the manufacturer's recommended calibration methodology to subtract the Cerenkov contribution to the signal as well as a modified method using smaller field sizes. The Sc,p calculated by using both calibration methodologies were compared. Results: Sc,p measured with the semiconductor and the PinPoint detectors agree, within 1.5%, for field sizes between 10'10 and 1'1 cm{sup 2}. Sc,p measured with the PSD using the manufacturer's calibration methodology were systematically 4% higher than those measured with the semiconductor detector for field sizes smaller than 5'5 cm{sup 2}. By using a modified calibration methodology for smalls fields and keeping the manufacturer calibration methodology for fields larger than 5'5cm{sup 2} field Sc,p matched semiconductor results within 2% field sizes larger than 1.5 cm. Conclusion: The calibration methodology proposed by the manufacturer is not appropriate for dose measurements in small fields. The calibration parameters are not independent of the incident radiation spectrum for this PSD. This work was partially financed by grant 2012 of Barcelona board of the AECC.« less
  • Purpose: According to clinical and research requirement, we develop a function of automatic reading dose of interest from dose volume histogram(DVH), to replace the traditional method with a mouse one by one point, and it's also verified. Methods: The DVH automatic reading function will be developed in an in-house developed radiotherapy information management system(RTIMS), which is based on Apache+PHP+MySQL. A DVH ASCII file is exported from Varian Eclipse V8.6, which includes the following contents: 1. basic information of patient; 2. dose information of plan; 3. dose information of structures, including basic information and dose volume data of target volume andmore » organ at risk. And the default exported dose volume data also includes relative doses by 1% step and corresponding absolute doses and cumulative relative volumes, and the volumes are 4 decimal fraction. Clinically, we often need read the doses of some integer percent volumes, such as D50 and D30. So it couldn't be directly obtained from the above data, but we can use linear interpolation bye the near volumes and doses: Dx=D2−(V2−Vx)*(D2−D1)/(V2−V1), and program a function to search, read and calculate the corresponding data. And the doses of all preseted volume of interest of all structures can be automatically read one by one patient, and saved as a CSV file. To verify it, we select 24 IMRT plans for prostate cancer, and doses of interest are PTV D98/D95/D5/D2, bladder D30/D50, and rectum D25/D50. Two groups of data, using the automatic reading method(ARM) and pointed dose method(PDM), are analyzed with SPSS 16. The absolute difference=D-ARM-D-PDM, relative difference=absolute difference*100%/prescription dose(7600cGy). Results: The differences are as following: PTV D98/D95/D5/D2: −0.04%/− 0.04%/0.13%/0.19%, bladder D30/D50: −0.02%/0.01%, and rectum D25/D50: 0.03%/0.01%. Conclusion: Using this function, the error is very small, and can be neglected. It could greatly improve the efficiency of clinical work. Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.81101694)« less
  • Purpose: To treat superficial target e.g. chest wall, head&neck or cranial cases, we commissioned two range shifter(RS) in Raystation4.0 with 7.37cm(RS1) and 4.1cm(RS2) Water Equivalent Thickness(WET) respectively. However, current beam model has limitations due to the secondary scattered proton. This study provides a detailed and critical commission data and provides suggestions for using RS in clinic. Methods: RS’ WET was verified by Multi-Layer Ionization Chamber from 120MeV to 226.7MeV before TPS modeling. Spot characteristics were measured using 2D scintillate detector at ISO with different air gap. A 8×8×10cm3 cube is created in 8cm depth of water to verify the absolutemore » dose accuracy. Plans were created with different air gap using both RS. Absolute dose verification was measured along the central axis from distal end to surface using PPC05. 10 clinical RS2 plans were measured using MatriXXPT in 3 planes (proximal, distal and midSOBP). Results: RS material’s proton stopping power is energy dependent(from 70MeV to 226.7MeV) ranging from 7.42 to 7.31cm and from 4.10 to 4.03cm respectively. We chose 7.37cm (RS1) and 4.10cm (RS2) to favor the low and median proton energy. With different air gap(3cm to 32cm), spot size expands from 3.2mm to 5.5mm(RS1) and from 3.1mm to 4.1mm(RS2) respectively(226.7MeV in air, 1-sigma). For the absolute dose verification, the larger air gap and shallower depth causes larger discrepancy between TPS and measurements. All 10 clinical plans with 5–10cm air gap passed gamma index 95% with 3%/3mm criteria and outputs differences were within 3%. Conclusion: We strongly recommend each institution to verify the WET independently and choose the value to fit the clinical needs. To minimize the output difference in Raystation4.0 while avoid potential collision to the patient, we recommend to use 5–10cm air gap to minimize the output difference within 2% and preferably use RS with smaller WET if possible.« less