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

Title: SU-F-T-165: Daily QA Analysis for Spot Scanning Beamline

Abstract

Purpose: The dosimetric results of our daily quality assurance over the last 8 years for discrete pencil beam scanning proton therapy will be presented. Methods: To perform the dosimetric checks, a multi-ion chamber detector is used, which consists of an array of 5 single parallel plate ion chambers that are aligned as a cross separated by 10cm each. The Tracker is snapped into a jig, which is placed on the tabletop. Different amounts of Solid Water buildup are added to shift the dose distribution. The dosimetric checks consist of 3 parts: position check, range check and volume dose check. Results: The average deviation of all position-check data were 0.2±1.3%. For the range check, the average deviation was 0.1%±1.2%, which also corresponds to a range stability of better than 1 mm over all measurements. The volumetric dose output readings were all within ±1% with the exception of 2 occasions when the cable to the dose monitor was being repaired. Conclusion: Morning QA using the Tracker device gives very stable dosimetric readings but is also sensitive to mechanical and output changes in the proton therapy delivery system.

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642406
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:
07 ISOTOPES AND RADIATION SOURCES; BEAM SCANNERS; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; PARTICLE TRACKS; PROTON BEAMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS

Citation Formats

Poenisch, F, Gillin, M, Sahoo, N, Martin, C, and Zhu, X. SU-F-T-165: Daily QA Analysis for Spot Scanning Beamline. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956301.
Poenisch, F, Gillin, M, Sahoo, N, Martin, C, & Zhu, X. SU-F-T-165: Daily QA Analysis for Spot Scanning Beamline. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956301.
Poenisch, F, Gillin, M, Sahoo, N, Martin, C, and Zhu, X. 2016. "SU-F-T-165: Daily QA Analysis for Spot Scanning Beamline". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956301.
@article{osti_22642406,
title = {SU-F-T-165: Daily QA Analysis for Spot Scanning Beamline},
author = {Poenisch, F and Gillin, M and Sahoo, N and Martin, C and Zhu, X},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The dosimetric results of our daily quality assurance over the last 8 years for discrete pencil beam scanning proton therapy will be presented. Methods: To perform the dosimetric checks, a multi-ion chamber detector is used, which consists of an array of 5 single parallel plate ion chambers that are aligned as a cross separated by 10cm each. The Tracker is snapped into a jig, which is placed on the tabletop. Different amounts of Solid Water buildup are added to shift the dose distribution. The dosimetric checks consist of 3 parts: position check, range check and volume dose check. Results: The average deviation of all position-check data were 0.2±1.3%. For the range check, the average deviation was 0.1%±1.2%, which also corresponds to a range stability of better than 1 mm over all measurements. The volumetric dose output readings were all within ±1% with the exception of 2 occasions when the cable to the dose monitor was being repaired. Conclusion: Morning QA using the Tracker device gives very stable dosimetric readings but is also sensitive to mechanical and output changes in the proton therapy delivery system.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956301},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Proton pencil beam scanning is used clinically across the United States. There are no current guidelines on tolerances for daily QA specific to pencil beam scanning, specifically related to the individual spot properties (spot width). Using a stochastic method to determine tolerances has the potential to optimize tolerances on individual spots and decrease the number of false positive failures in daily QA. Individual and global spot tolerances were evaluated. Methods: As part of daily QA for proton pencil beam scanning, a field of 16 spots (corresponding to 8 energies) is measured using an array of ion chambers (Matrixx, IBA).more » Each individual spot is fit to two Gaussian functions (x,y). The spot width (σ) in × and y are recorded (32 parameters). Results from the daily QA were retrospectively analyzed for 100 days of data. The deviations of the spot widths were histogrammed and fit to a Gaussian function. The stochastic spot tolerance was taken to be the mean ± 3σ. Using these results, tolerances were developed and tested against known deviations in spot width. Results: The individual spot tolerances derived with the stochastic method decreased in 30/32 instances. Using the previous tolerances (± 20% width), the daily QA would have detected 0/20 days of the deviation. Using a tolerance of any 6 spots failing the stochastic tolerance, 18/20 days of the deviation would have been detected. Conclusion: Using a stochastic method we have been able to decrease daily tolerances on the spot widths for 30/32 spot widths measured. The stochastic tolerances can lead to detection of deviations that previously would have been picked up on monthly QA and missed by daily QA. This method could be easily extended for evaluation of other QA parameters in proton spot scanning.« less
  • A scanning laser-spot system has been developed for the in situ evaluation of carrier collection in liquid-junction solar cells. The system was applied to the identification of topological features and the correlation of these features to the carrier collection efficiency on several materials presently being considered as solar energy converters in the liquid-junction cell configuration.
  • Purpose: Conventional proton therapy with passively scattered beams is used to treat a number of tumor sites, including prostate cancer. Spot scanning proton therapy is a treatment delivery means that improves conformal coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV). Placement of individual spots within a target is dependent on traversed tissue density. Errors in patient alignment perturb dose distributions. Moreover, there is a need for a rational planning approach that can mitigate the dosimetric effect of random alignment errors. We propose a treatment planning approach and then analyze the consequences of various simulated alignment errors on prostate treatments. Methods andmore » Materials: Ten control patients with localized prostate cancer underwent treatment planning for spot scanning proton therapy. After delineation of the clinical target volume, a scanning target volume (STV) was created to guide dose coverage. Errors in patient alignment in two axes (rotational and yaw) as well as translational errors in the anteroposterior direction were then simulated, and dose to the CTV and normal tissues were reanalyzed. Results: Coverage of the CTV remained high even in the setting of extreme rotational and yaw misalignments. Changes in the rectum and bladder V45 and V70 were similarly minimal, except in the case of translational errors, where, as a result of opposed lateral beam arrangements, much larger dosimetric perturbations were observed. Conclusions: The concept of the STV as applied to spot scanning radiation therapy and as presented in this report leads to robust coverage of the CTV even in the setting of extreme patient misalignments.« less
  • Purpose: Base of skull meningioma can be treated with both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and spot scanned proton therapy (PT). One of the main benefits of PT is better sparing of organs at risk, but due to the physical and dosimetric characteristics of protons, spot scanned PT can be more sensitive to the uncertainties encountered in the treatment process compared with photon treatment. Therefore, robustness analysis should be part of a comprehensive comparison between these two treatment methods in order to quantify and understand the sensitivity of the treatment techniques to uncertainties. The aim of this work was tomore » benchmark a spot scanning treatment planning system for planning of base of skull meningioma and to compare the created plans and analyze their robustness to setup errors against the IMRT technique. Methods: Plans were produced for three base of skull meningioma cases: IMRT planned with a commercial TPS [Monaco (Elekta AB, Sweden)]; single field uniform dose (SFUD) spot scanning PT produced with an in-house TPS (PSI-plan); and SFUD spot scanning PT plan created with a commercial TPS [XiO (Elekta AB, Sweden)]. A tool for evaluating robustness to random setup errors was created and, for each plan, both a dosimetric evaluation and a robustness analysis to setup errors were performed. Results: It was possible to create clinically acceptable treatment plans for spot scanning proton therapy of meningioma with a commercially available TPS. However, since each treatment planning system uses different methods, this comparison showed different dosimetric results as well as different sensitivities to setup uncertainties. The results confirmed the necessity of an analysis tool for assessing plan robustness to provide a fair comparison of photon and proton plans. Conclusions: Robustness analysis is a critical part of plan evaluation when comparing IMRT plans with spot scanned proton therapy plans.« less
  • Purpose: Planning studies to compare x-ray and proton techniques and to select the most suitable technique for each patient have been hampered by the nonequivalence of several aspects of treatment planning and delivery. A fair comparison should compare similarly advanced delivery techniques from current clinical practice and also assess the robustness of each technique. The present study therefore compared volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and single-field optimization (SFO) spot scanning proton therapy plans created using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose escalation in midesophageal cancer and analyzed the effect of setup and range uncertainties on these plans. Methods andmore » Materials: For 21 patients, SIB plans with a physical dose prescription of 2 Gy or 2.5 Gy/fraction in 25 fractions to planning target volume (PTV){sub 50Gy} or PTV{sub 62.5Gy} (primary tumor with 0.5 cm margins) were created and evaluated for robustness to random setup errors and proton range errors. Dose–volume metrics were compared for the optimal and uncertainty plans, with P<.05 (Wilcoxon) considered significant. Results: SFO reduced the mean lung dose by 51.4% (range 35.1%-76.1%) and the mean heart dose by 40.9% (range 15.0%-57.4%) compared with VMAT. Proton plan robustness to a 3.5% range error was acceptable. For all patients, the clinical target volume D{sub 98} was 95.0% to 100.4% of the prescribed dose and gross tumor volume (GTV) D{sub 98} was 98.8% to 101%. Setup error robustness was patient anatomy dependent, and the potential minimum dose per fraction was always lower with SFO than with VMAT. The clinical target volume D{sub 98} was lower by 0.6% to 7.8% of the prescribed dose, and the GTV D{sub 98} was lower by 0.3% to 2.2% of the prescribed GTV dose. Conclusions: The SFO plans achieved significant sparing of normal tissue compared with the VMAT plans for midesophageal cancer. The target dose coverage in the SIB proton plans was less robust to random setup errors and might be unacceptable for certain patients. Robust optimization to ensure adequate target coverage of SIB proton plans might be beneficial.« less