Furutani, Keith M.

PurposeMicrodosimetry is a vital tool for assessing the microscopic patterns of energy deposition by radiation, which ultimately govern biological effect. Solid‐state, silicon‐on‐insulator microdosimeters offer an approach for making microdosimetric measurements with high spatial resolution (on the order of tens of micrometers). These high‐resolution, solid‐state microdosimeters may therefore play a useful role in characterizing proton radiotherapy fields, particularly for making highly resolved measurements within the Bragg peak region. In this work, we obtain microdosimetric measurements with a solid‐state microdosimeter (MicroPlus probe) in a clinical, spot‐scanning proton beam of small spot size.MethodsThe MicroPlus probe had a 3D single sensitive volume on top of silicon oxide. The sensitive volume had an active cross‐sectional area of 250 μm × 10 μm and thickness of 10 μm. The proton facility was a synchrotron‐based, spot‐scanning system with small spot size (σ ≈ 2 mm). We performed measurements with the clinical beam current (≈1 nA) and had no detected pulse pile‐up. Measurements were made in a water‐equivalent phantom in water‐equivalent depth (WED) increments of 0.25 mm or 1.0 mm along pristine Bragg peaks of energies 71.3 MeV and 159.9 MeV, respectively. For each depth, we measured lineal energy distributions and then calculated the dose‐weighted mean lineal energy, . The measurements were repeated for two field sizes: 4 × 4 cm2 and 20 × 20 cm2.ResultsFor both 71.3 MeV and 159.9 MeV and for both field sizes, increased with depth toward the distal edge of the Bragg peak, a result consistent with Monte Carlo calculations and measurements performed elsewhere. For the 71.3 MeV, 4 × 4 cm2 beam (range at 80% distal falloff, R80 = 3.99 cm), we measured keV/μm at WED = 2 cm, and keV/μm at WED = 3.95 cm. For the 71.3 MeV, 20 × 20 cm2 beam, we measured keV/μm at WED = 2.6 cm, and keV/μm at WED = 3 cm. For the 159.9 MeV, 4 × 4 cm2 beam (R80 = 17.7 cm), keV/μm at WED = 5 cm, and keV/μm at WED = 17.6 cm. For the 159.9 MeV, 20 × 20 cm2 beam, keV/μm at WED = 5 cm, and keV/μm at WED = 17.6 cm.ConclusionsWe performed microdosimetric measurements with a novel solid‐state, silicon‐on‐insulator microdosimeter in a clinical spot‐scanning proton beam of small spot size and unmodified beam current. For all of the proton field sizes and energies considered, the measurements of were in agreement with expected trends. Furthermore, we obtained measurements with a spatial resolution of 10 μm in the beam direction. This spatial resolution greatly exceeded that possible with a conventional gaseous tissue‐equivalent proportional counter and allowed us to perform a high‐resolution investigation within the Bragg peak region. The MicroPlus probe is therefore suitable for applications in proton radiotherapy.

PurposeThis work aims to characterize a proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) and passive double scattering (DS) systems as well as to measure parameters relevant to the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the beam using a silicon on insulator (SOI) microdosimeter with well‐defined 3D sensitive volumes (SV). The dose equivalent downstream and laterally outside of a clinical PBS treatment field was assessed and compared to that of a DS beam.MethodsA novel silicon microdosimeter with well‐defined 3D SVs was used in this study. It was connected to low noise electronics, allowing for detection of lineal energies as low as 0.15 keV/μm. The microdosimeter was placed at various depths in a water phantom along the central axis of the proton beam, and at the distal part of the spread‐out Bragg peak (SOBP) in 0.5 mm increments. The RBE values of the pristine Bragg peak (BP) and SOBP were derived using the measured microdosimetric lineal energy spectra as inputs to the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM). Geant4 simulations were performed in order to verify the calculated depth‐dose distribution from the treatment planning system (TPS) and to compare the simulated dose‐mean lineal energy to the experimental results.ResultsFor a 131 MeV PBS spot (124.6 mm R90 range in water), the measured dose‐mean lineal energy increased from 2 keV/μm at the entrance to 8 keV/μm in the BP, with a maximum value of 10 keV/μm at the distal edge. The derived RBE distribution for the PBS beam slowly increased from 0.97 ± 0.14 at the entrance to 1.04 ± 0.09 proximal to the BP, then to 1.1 ± 0.08 in the BP, and steeply rose to 1.57 ± 0.19 at the distal part of the BP. The RBE distribution for the DS SOBP beam was approximately 0.96 ± 0.16 to 1.01 ± 0.16 at shallow depths, and 1.01 ± 0.16 to 1.28 ± 0.17 within the SOBP. The RBE significantly increased from 1.29 ± 0.17 to 1.43 ± 0.18 at the distal edge of the SOBP.ConclusionsThe SOI microdosimeter with its well‐defined 3D SV has applicability in characterizing proton radiation fields and can measure relevant physical parameters to model the RBE with submillimeter spatial resolution. It has been shown that for a physical dose of 1.82 Gy at the BP, the derived RBE based on the MKM model increased from 1.14 to 1.6 in the BP and its distal part. Good agreement was observed between the experimental and simulation results, confirming the potential application of SOI microdosimeter with 3D SV for quality assurance in proton therapy.

PurposeTo accurately model the beam delivery time (BDT) for a synchrotron‐based proton spot scanning system using experimentally determined beam parameters.MethodsA model to simulate the proton spot delivery sequences was constructed, and BDT was calculated by summing times for layer switch, spot switch, and spot delivery. Test plans were designed to isolate and quantify the relevant beam parameters in the operation cycle of the proton beam therapy delivery system. These parameters included the layer switch time, magnet preparation and verification time, average beam scanning speeds in x‐ and y‐directions, proton spill rate, and maximum charge and maximum extraction time for each spill. The experimentally determined parameters, as well as the nominal values initially provided by the vendor, served as inputs to the model to predict BDTs for 602 clinical proton beam deliveries. The calculated BDTs (TBDT) were compared with the BDTs recorded in the treatment delivery log files (TLog): ∆t = TLog−TBDT.ResultsThe experimentally determined average layer switch time for all 97 energies was 1.91 s (ranging from 1.9 to 2.0 s for beam energies from 71.3 to 228.8 MeV), average magnet preparation and verification time was 1.93 ms, the average scanning speeds were 5.9 m/s in x‐direction and 19.3 m/s in y‐direction, the proton spill rate was 8.7 MU/s, and the maximum proton charge available for one acceleration is 2.0 ± 0.4 nC. Some of the measured parameters differed from the nominal values provided by the vendor. The calculated BDTs using experimentally determined parameters matched the recorded BDTs of 602 beam deliveries (∆t = −0.49 ± 1.44 s), which were significantly more accurate than BDTs calculated using nominal timing parameters (∆t = −7.48 ± 6.97 s).ConclusionsAn accurate model for BDT prediction was achieved by using the experimentally determined proton beam therapy delivery parameters, which may be useful in modeling the interplay effect and patient throughput. The model may provide guidance on how to effectively reduce BDT and may be used to identifying deteriorating machine performance.

A 24 mm COMS‐like eye plaque was developed to meet the treatment needs of our eye plaque brachytherapy practice. As part of commissioning, it was necessary to determine the new plaque's seed coordinates. The FARO Edge, a commercially available measurement arm, was chosen for this purpose. In order to validate the FARO Edge method, it was first used to measure the seed marker coordinates in the silastic molds for the standard 10, 18, and 20 mm COMS plaques, and the results were compared with the standard published Task Group 129 coordinates by a nonlinear least squares match in MATLAB version R2013a. All measured coordinates were within 0.60 mm, and root mean square deviation was 0.12, 0.23, and 0.35 mm for the 10, 18, and 20 mm molds, respectively. The FARO Edge was then used to measure the seed marker locations in the new 24 mm silastic mold. Those values were compared to the manufacturing specification coordinates and were found to demonstrate good agreement, with a maximum deviation of 0.56 mm and a root mean square deviation of 0.37 mm. The FARO Edge is deemed to be a reliable method for determining seed coordinates for COMS silastics, and the seed coordinates for the new 24 mm plaque are presented.PACS number: 87.53.Jw

Abstract We investigated the influence of PD-1 expression on the systemic antitumor response (abscopal effect) induced by stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in preclinical melanoma and renal cell carcinoma models. We compared the SABR-induced antitumor response in PD-1–expressing wild-type (WT) and PD-1–deficient knockout (KO) mice and found that PD-1 expression compromises the survival of tumor-bearing mice treated with SABR. None of the PD-1 WT mice survived beyond 25 days, whereas 20% of the PD-1 KO mice survived beyond 40 days. Similarly, PD-1–blocking antibody in WT mice was able to recapitulate SABR-induced antitumor responses observed in PD-1 KO mice and led to increased survival. The combination of SABR plus PD-1 blockade induced near complete regression of the irradiated primary tumor (synergistic effect), as opposed to SABR alone or SABR plus control antibody. The combination of SABR plus PD-1 blockade therapy elicited a 66% reduction in size of nonirradiated, secondary tumors outside the SABR radiation field (abscopal effect). The observed abscopal effect was tumor specific and was not dependent on tumor histology or host genetic background. The CD11ahigh CD8+ T-cell phenotype identifies a tumor-reactive population, which was associated in frequency and function with a SABR-induced antitumor immune response in PD-1 KO mice. We conclude that SABR induces an abscopal tumor-specific immune response in both the irradiated and nonirradiated tumors, which is potentiated by PD-1 blockade. The combination of SABR and PD-1 blockade has the potential to translate into a potent immunotherapy strategy in the management of patients with metastatic cancer. Cancer Immunol Res; 3(6); 610–9. ©2015 AACR.

Objective To determine whether consolidation can occur during radiotherapy after segmental distraction osteogenesis. Segmental distraction osteogenesis has potential as a reconstructive option after oncologic resection of the mandible. However, postoperative radiotherapy has potentially deleterious effects on bone consolidation after distraction osteogenesis. Methods Tibial defects of 1.0 cm were created in 5 New Zealand white rabbits. After a 6-day latency phase, a 1.0-cm distraction segment was created in 0.3-mm increments every 12 hours. Within 24 hours of the distraction completion, the tibia received the biologic equivalent of 6000 rad (60 Gy). After 6 weeks of consolidation, the animals were humanely killed. Bone was analyzed radiographically, grossly (at autopsy), and histomorphometrically. Results Four rabbits completed the 6-week consolidation period. All specimens had evidence of calcified bone in the segmental defect on radiographic analysis. At autopsy, the volume of new bone equaled that of the removed segment. On histologic examination, the volume of new trabecular bone was similar to adjacent cortical bone. Conclusions Consolidation of segmental distraction osteogenesis defects can occur in rabbit tibia during external beam radiotherapy. To our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate successful consolidation of segmental distraction osteogenesis during external beam radiotherapy.