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. Wed . "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 = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • 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
  • Purpose: To develop an algorithm which can calculate the Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM) of a Proton Pencil Beam from a 2D dimensional ion chamber array (IBA Matrixx) with limited spatial resolution ( 7.6 mm inter chamber distance). The algorithm would allow beam FWHM measurements to be taken during daily QA without an appreciable time increase. Methods: Combinations of 147 MeV single spot beams were delivered onto an IBA Matrixx and concurrently on EBT3 films for a standard. Data were collected around the Bragg Peak region and evaluated by a custom MATLAB script based on our algorithm using a leastmore » squared analysis. A set of artificial data, modified with random noise, was also processed to test for robustness. Results: The Matlab script processed Matixx data shows acceptable agreement (within 5%) with film measurements with no single measurement differing by more than 1.8 mm. In cases where the spots show some degree of asymmetry, the algorithm is able to resolve the differences. The algorithm was able to process artificial data with noise up to 15% of the maximum value. Time assays of each measurement took less than 3 minutes to perform, indicating that such measurements may be efficiently added to daily QA treatment. Conclusion: The developed algorithm can be implemented in daily QA program for Proton Pencil Beam scanning beams (PBS) with Matrixx to extract spot size and position information. The developed algorithm may be extended to small field sizes in photon clinic.« less
  • Purpose: The use of log files to perform patient specific quality assurance for both protons and IMRT has been established. Here, we extend that approach to a proprietary log file format and compare our results to measurements in phantom. Our goal was to generate a system that would permit gross errors to be found within 3 fractions until direct measurements. This approach could eventually replace direct measurements. Methods: Spot scanning protons pass through multi-wire ionization chambers which provide information about the charge, location, and size of each delivered spot. We have generated a program that calculates the dose in phantommore » from these log files and compares the measurements with the plan. The program has 3 different spot shape models: single Gaussian, double Gaussian and the ASTROID model. The program was benchmarked across different treatment sites for 23 patients and 74 fields. Results: The dose calculated from the log files were compared to those generate by the treatment planning system (Raystation). While the dual Gaussian model often gave better agreement, overall, the ASTROID model gave the most consistent results. Using a 5%–3 mm gamma with a 90% passing criteria and excluding doses below 20% of prescription all patient samples passed. However, the degree of agreement of the log file approach was slightly worse than that of the chamber array measurement approach. Operationally, this implies that if the beam passes the log file model, it should pass direct measurement. Conclusion: We have established and benchmarked a model for log file QA in an IBA proteus plus system. The choice of optimal spot model for a given class of patients may be affected by factors such as site, field size, and range shifter and will be investigated further.« less
  • Purpose: A daily QA device is used to monitor output, flatness and symmetry constancy for all linac photon and electron energies. If large deviations from baseline in flatness or symmetry are reported it becomes necessary to crosscheck the measurements with a second device. Setting up another device such as Matrixx (IBA Dosimetry) can be time consuming, due to its warm-up time, and trained personnel may not be readily available to analyze the results. Furthermore, this discrepancy is frequently isolated to a single energy. Unaffected energies could still be used, avoiding further patient delays, if a method to gather data formore » offline analysis could be developed. We find that optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) provide a quick, simple, and inexpensive solution to this important clinical problem. Methods: The exact geometry of the detectors on the daily tracker (Keithley Therapy Beam Evaluator) was reproduced by placing nanoDot OSLDs (Landauer) on a solid water phantom. A combination of bolus and solid water was placed on top to provide buildup and prevent air gaps. Standard daily measurements of output, flatness and symmetry were taken for 2 photon energies (6x,10x) and 5 electron energies (6e,9e,12e,15e,18e) using the tracker. These measurements were then repeated with the OSLD phantom. Results: The time it took to set up the OSLD phantom was comparable to that of the tracker. The inline and crossline OSLD phantom measurements of flatness and symmetry agreed with the tracker results to within 2%. Conclusion: OSLDs provide a good solution for a quick second check when questionable flatness and symmetry results are detected with the tracker during daily QA.« less
  • Purpose: (A) To assess the role of Varian MPC in our daily QA routine, and (B) evaluate the accuracy and precision of MPC. Methods: The MPC was performed weekly, for five months, on a Varian TrueBeam for five photon (6x, 10x, 15x, 6xFFF, and 10xFFF) and electron (6e, 9e, 12e, 16e, and 20e) energies. Output results were compared to those determined with an ionization chamber (TN30001, PTW-Freiburg) in plastic and a daily check device (DQA3, Sun Nuclear). Consistency of the Mechanical measurements over five months was analyzed and compared to monthly IsoCal results. Results: The MPC randomly showed large deviationsmore » (3–7%) that disappeared upon reacquisition. The MPC output closely matched monthly ion chamber and DQA3 measurements. The maximum and mean absolute difference between monthly and MPC was 1.18% and 0.28±0.21% for all energies. The maximum and mean absolute difference between DQA3 and MPC was 3.26% and 0.85±0.61%. The results suggest the MPC is comparable to the DQA3 for measuring output. The DQA3 provides wedge output, flatness, symmetry, and energy constancy checks, which are missing from the current implementation of the MPC. However, the MPC provides additional mechanical tests, such as size of the radiation isocenter (0.33±0.02 mm) and its coincidence with MV and kV isocenters (0.17±0.05 and 0.21±0.03 mm). It also provides positional accuracy of individual jaws (maximum σ, 0.33mm), all the MLC leaves (0.08mm), gantry (0.05°) and collimator (0.13°) rotation angles, and couch positioning (0.11mm) accuracy. MPC mechanical tests could replace our current daily on-board imaging QA routine and provide some additional QA not currently performed. Conclusion: MPC has the potential to be a valuable tool that facilitates reliable daily QA including many mechanical tests that are not currently performed. This system can add to our daily QA, but further development would be needed to fully replace our current Daily QA device.« less