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

Title: SU-F-T-138: Commissioning and Evaluating Dose Computation Models for a Dedicated Proton Line Scanning Beam Nozzle in Eclipse Treatment Planning System

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we present an effective method to derive low dose envelope of the proton in-air spot fluence at beam positions other than the isocenter to reduce amount of measurements required for planning commission. Also, we demonstrate commissioning and validation results of this method to the Eclipse treatment planning system (version 13.0.29) for a Sumitomo dedicated proton line scanning beam nozzle. Methods: The in-air spot profiles at five beam-axis positions (±200, ±100 and 0 mm) were obtained in trigger mode using a MP3 Water tank (PTW-Freiburg) and a pinpoint ionization chamber (model 31014, PTW-Freiburg). Low dose envelope (below 1% of the center dose) of the spot profile at isocenter was obtained by repeated point measurements to minimize dosimetry uncertainty. The double Gaussian (DG) model was used to fit and obtain optimal σ1, σ2 and their corresponding weightings through our in-house MATLAB (Mathworks) program. σ1, σ2 were assumed to expand linearly along the beam axis from a virtual source position calculated by back projecting fitted sigmas from the single Gaussian (SG) model. Absolute doses in water were validated using an Advanced Markus chamber at the depth of 2cm with Pristine Peak (BP) R90d ranging from 5–32 cm for 10×10more » cm2 scanned fields. The field size factors were verified with square fields from 2 to 20 cm at 2cm and before BP depth. Results: The absolute dose outputs were found to be within ±3%. For field size factor, the agreement between calculated and measurement were within ±2% at 2cm and ±3% before BP, except for the field size below 2×2 cm2. Conclusion: The double Gaussian model was found to be sufficient for characterizing the Sumitomo dedicated proton line scanning nozzle. With our effective double Gaussian fitting method, we are able to save significant proton beam time with acceptable output accuracy.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1];  [3]
  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Proton and Radiation Therapy Center, Tao-yuan, Taiwan (China)
  2. (China)
  3. Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan (China)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642379
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; CALCULATION METHODS; COMMISSIONING; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; NOZZLES; PLANNING; PROTON BEAMS; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Tsai, P, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Huang, H, Cai, S, Chen, H, Wu, S, Wu, T, Lee, S, Yeh, C, Wu, T, and Lee, C. SU-F-T-138: Commissioning and Evaluating Dose Computation Models for a Dedicated Proton Line Scanning Beam Nozzle in Eclipse Treatment Planning System. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956274.
Tsai, P, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Huang, H, Cai, S, Chen, H, Wu, S, Wu, T, Lee, S, Yeh, C, Wu, T, & Lee, C. SU-F-T-138: Commissioning and Evaluating Dose Computation Models for a Dedicated Proton Line Scanning Beam Nozzle in Eclipse Treatment Planning System. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956274.
Tsai, P, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Huang, H, Cai, S, Chen, H, Wu, S, Wu, T, Lee, S, Yeh, C, Wu, T, and Lee, C. 2016. "SU-F-T-138: Commissioning and Evaluating Dose Computation Models for a Dedicated Proton Line Scanning Beam Nozzle in Eclipse Treatment Planning System". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956274.
@article{osti_22642379,
title = {SU-F-T-138: Commissioning and Evaluating Dose Computation Models for a Dedicated Proton Line Scanning Beam Nozzle in Eclipse Treatment Planning System},
author = {Tsai, P and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan and Huang, H and Cai, S and Chen, H and Wu, S and Wu, T and Lee, S and Yeh, C and Wu, T and Lee, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: In this study, we present an effective method to derive low dose envelope of the proton in-air spot fluence at beam positions other than the isocenter to reduce amount of measurements required for planning commission. Also, we demonstrate commissioning and validation results of this method to the Eclipse treatment planning system (version 13.0.29) for a Sumitomo dedicated proton line scanning beam nozzle. Methods: The in-air spot profiles at five beam-axis positions (±200, ±100 and 0 mm) were obtained in trigger mode using a MP3 Water tank (PTW-Freiburg) and a pinpoint ionization chamber (model 31014, PTW-Freiburg). Low dose envelope (below 1% of the center dose) of the spot profile at isocenter was obtained by repeated point measurements to minimize dosimetry uncertainty. The double Gaussian (DG) model was used to fit and obtain optimal σ1, σ2 and their corresponding weightings through our in-house MATLAB (Mathworks) program. σ1, σ2 were assumed to expand linearly along the beam axis from a virtual source position calculated by back projecting fitted sigmas from the single Gaussian (SG) model. Absolute doses in water were validated using an Advanced Markus chamber at the depth of 2cm with Pristine Peak (BP) R90d ranging from 5–32 cm for 10×10 cm2 scanned fields. The field size factors were verified with square fields from 2 to 20 cm at 2cm and before BP depth. Results: The absolute dose outputs were found to be within ±3%. For field size factor, the agreement between calculated and measurement were within ±2% at 2cm and ±3% before BP, except for the field size below 2×2 cm2. Conclusion: The double Gaussian model was found to be sufficient for characterizing the Sumitomo dedicated proton line scanning nozzle. With our effective double Gaussian fitting method, we are able to save significant proton beam time with acceptable output accuracy.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956274},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To present our method and experience in commissioning dose models in water for spot scanning proton therapy in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). Methods: The input data required by the TPS included in-air transverse profiles and integral depth doses (IDDs). All input data were obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations that had been validated by measurements. MC-generated IDDs were converted to units of Gy mm{sup 2}/MU using the measured IDDs at a depth of 2 cm employing the largest commercially available parallel-plate ionization chamber. The sensitive area of the chamber was insufficient to fully encompass the entire lateralmore » dose deposited at depth by a pencil beam (spot). To correct for the detector size, correction factors as a function of proton energy were defined and determined using MC. The fluence of individual spots was initially modeled as a single Gaussian (SG) function and later as a double Gaussian (DG) function. The DG fluence model was introduced to account for the spot fluence due to contributions of large angle scattering from the devices within the scanning nozzle, especially from the spot profile monitor. To validate the DG fluence model, we compared calculations and measurements, including doses at the center of spread out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) as a function of nominal field size, range, and SOBP width, lateral dose profiles, and depth doses for different widths of SOBP. Dose models were validated extensively with patient treatment field-specific measurements. Results: We demonstrated that the DG fluence model is necessary for predicting the field size dependence of dose distributions. With this model, the calculated doses at the center of SOBPs as a function of nominal field size, range, and SOBP width, lateral dose profiles and depth doses for rectangular target volumes agreed well with respective measured values. With the DG fluence model for our scanning proton beam line, we successfully treated more than 500 patients from March 2010 through June 2012 with acceptable agreement between TPS calculated and measured dose distributions. However, the current dose model still has limitations in predicting field size dependence of doses at some intermediate depths of proton beams with high energies. Conclusions: We have commissioned a DG fluence model for clinical use. It is demonstrated that the DG fluence model is significantly more accurate than the SG fluence model. However, some deficiencies in modeling the low-dose envelope in the current dose algorithm still exist. Further improvements to the current dose algorithm are needed. The method presented here should be useful for commissioning pencil beam dose algorithms in new versions of TPS in the future.« less
  • Purpose: A treatment planning system (TPS) was commissioned for clinical use with a fixed beam line proton delivery system. An outline of the data collection, modeling, and verification is provided. Methods: Beam data modeling for proton spot scanning in CMS Xio TPS requires the following measurements: (i) integral depth dose curves (IDDCs); (ii) absolute dose calibration; and (iii) beam spot characteristics. The IDDCs for 18 proton energies were measured using an integrating detector in a single spot field in a water phantom. Absolute scaling of the IDDCs were performed based on ion chamber measurements in mono-energetic 10×10 cm{sup 2} fieldsmore » in water. Beam spot shapes were measured in air using a flat panel scintillator detector at multiple planes. For beam model verification, more than 45 uniform dose phantom and patient plans were generated. These plans were used to measure range, point dose, and longitudinal and lateral profiles. Tolerances employed for verification are: point dose and longitudinal profiles, ±2%; range, ±1 mm; FWHM for lateral profiles, ±2 mm; and patient plan dose distribution, gamma index of >90% at 3%/3 mm criteria. Results: More than 97% of the point dose measurements out of 115 were within +/-2% with maximum deviation of 3%. 98% of the ranges measured were within 1 mm with maximum deviation of 1.4mm. The normalized depth doses were within 2% at all depths. The maximum error in FWHM of lateral profiles was found to be less than 2mm. For 5 patient plans representing different anatomic sites, a total of 38 planes for 12 beams were analyzed for gamma index with average value of 99% and minimum of 94%. Conclusions: The planning system is successfully commissioned and can be safely deployed for clinical use. Measurements of IDDCs on user beam are highly recommended instead of using standard beam IDDCs.« less
  • Purpose: To commission electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithm in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) for TrueBeam Linacs, including the evaluation of dose calculation accuracy for small fields and oblique beams and comparison with the existing eMC model for Clinacs. Methods: Electron beam percent-depth-dose (PDDs) and profiles with and without applicators, as well as output factors, were measured from two Varian TrueBeam machines. Measured data were compared against the Varian TrueBeam Representative Beam Data (VTBRBD). The selected data set was transferred into Eclipse for beam configuration. Dose calculation accuracy from eMC was evaluated for open fields, small cut-out fields, and obliquemore » beams at different incident angles. The TrueBeam data was compared to the existing Clinac data and eMC model to evaluate the differences among Linac types. Results: Our measured data indicated that electron beam PDDs from our TrueBeam machines are well matched to those from our Varian Clinac machines, but in-air profiles, cone factors and open-filed output factors are significantly different. The data from our two TrueBeam machines were well represented by the VTBRBD. Variations of TrueBeam PDDs and profiles were within the 2% /2mm criteria for all energies, and the output factors for fields with and without applicators all agree within 2%. Obliquity factor for two clinically relevant applicator sizes (10×10 and 15×15 cm{sup 2}) and three oblique angles (15, 30, and 45 degree) were measured for nominal R100, R90, and R80 of each electron beam energy. Comparisons of calculations using eMC of obliquity factors and cut-out factors versus measurements will be presented. Conclusion: eMC algorithm in Eclipse TPS can be configured using the VTBRBD. Significant differences between TrueBeam and Clinacs were found in in-air profiles and open field output factors. The accuracy of the eMC algorithm was evaluated for a wide range of cut-out factors and oblique incidence.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and limitations of a commercially-available treatment planning system’s (TPS’s) dose calculation algorithm for proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS) and present a novel technique to efficiently derive a clinically-acceptable beam model. Methods: In-air fluence profiles of PBS spots were modeled in the TPS alternately as single-(SG) and double-Gaussian (DG) functions, based on fits to commissioning data. Uniform-fluence, single-energy-layer square fields of various sizes and energies were calculated with both beam models and delivered to water. Dose was measured at several depths. Motivated by observed discrepancies in measured-versus-calculated dose comparisons, a third model was constructed based on double-Gaussianmore » parameters contrived through a novel technique developed to minimize these differences (DGC). Eleven cuboid-dose-distribution-shaped fields with varying range/modulation and field size were subsequently generated in the TPS, using each of the three beam models described, and delivered to water. Dose was measured at the middle of each spread-out Bragg peak. Results: For energies <160 MeV, the DG model fit square-field measurements to <2% at all depths, while the SG model could disagree by >6%. For energies >160 MeV, both SG and DG models fit square-field measurements to <1% at <4 cm depth, but could exceed 6% deeper. By comparison, disagreement with the DGC model was always <3%. For the cuboid plans, calculation-versus-measured percent dose differences exceeded 7% for the SG model, being larger for smaller fields. The DG model showed <3% disagreement for all field sizes in shorter-range beams, although >5% differences for smaller fields persisted in longer-range beams. In contrast, the DGC model predicted measurements to <2% for all beams. Conclusion: Neither the TPS’s SG nor DG models, employed as intended, are ideally suited for routine clinical use. However, via a novel technique to be presented, its DG model can be tuned judiciously to yield acceptable results.« less
  • Purpose: The main purposes of this study were to (1) investigate the dependency of lateral penumbra (80%–20% distance) of uniform scanning proton beams on various factors such as air gap, proton range, modulation width, compensator thickness, and depth, and (2) compare the lateral penumbra calculated by a treatment planning system (TPS) with measurements.Methods: First, lateral penumbra was measured using solid–water phantom and radiographic films for (a) air gap, ranged from 0 to 35 cm, (b) proton range, ranged from 8 to 30 cm, (c) modulation, ranged from 2 to 10 cm, (d) compensator thickness, ranged from 0 to 20 cm,more » and (e) depth, ranged from 7 to 15 cm. Second, dose calculations were computed in a virtual water phantom using the XiO TPS with pencil beam algorithm for identical beam conditions and geometrical configurations that were used for the measurements. The calculated lateral penumbra was then compared with the measured one for both the horizontal and vertical scanning magnets of our uniform scanning proton beam delivery system.Results: The results in the current study showed that the lateral penumbra of horizontal scanning magnet was larger (up to 1.4 mm for measurement and up to 1.0 mm for TPS) compared to that of vertical scanning magnet. Both the TPS and measurements showed an almost linear increase in lateral penumbra with increasing air gap as it produced the greatest effect on lateral penumbra. Lateral penumbra was dependent on the depth and proton range. Specifically, the width of lateral penumbra was found to be always lower at shallower depth than at deeper depth within the spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) region. The lateral penumbra results were less sensitive to the variation in the thickness of compensator, whereas lateral penumbra was independent of modulation. Overall, the comparison between the results of TPS with that of measurements indicates a good agreement for lateral penumbra, with TPS predicting higher values compared to measurements.Conclusions: Lateral penumbra of uniform scanning proton beams depends on air gap, proton range, compensator thickness, and depth, whereas lateral penumbra is not dependent on modulation. The XiO TPS typically overpredicted lateral penumbra compared to measurements, within 1 mm for most cases, but the difference could be up to 2.5 mm at a deep depth and large air gap.« less