Kang, Minglei

Abstract Background Standardizing beam modeling in the treatment planning system is challenging due to machine‐specific configuration variations. Because of the proton therapy system (PTS) complexity and continuous development, there is no vendor's representative (“golden”) beam data like in LINACs at this stage. Purpose The primary goal of this study is to create a PTS‐specific repository of source model parameters and beam commissioning data for scanning proton therapy treatment planning systems and establish a set of reference values with associated bands of variations for this data. Methods We conducted a survey of 31 PTSs at 27 proton therapy centers to gather beam commissioning source model parameters used in their treatment planning system, ensuring a diverse selection of PTSs from major vendors: Hitachi, IBA, Varian, and Mevion. For each proton therapy center, we collected (i) beam meterset calibration in protons per MU, (ii) in‐air spot size at isocenter in terms of standard deviation in x‐ (crossline, σ x ) and y‐ (inline, σ y ) directions, (iii) in‐air angular spread at isocenter in x‐direction (θ x ) and y‐direction (θ y ) and (iv) distal falloff. For each PTS, we plotted each parameter as a function of nominal energy and performed polynomial regression analysis with optimal model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to quantify inter‐PTS variability and generated uncertainty bands representing standard deviations across PTSs for each parameter. Additionally, we computed percentage deviations of each individual PTS from the overall multi‐vendor mean to identify systematic vendor‐specific patterns and outliers across the 31 total PTSs analyzed. Results Multi‐vendor beam parameter analysis across 31 PTSs revealed systematic vendor‐specific patterns in inter‐PTS consistency and energy dependencies. Beam meterset calibration demonstrated excellent inter‐PTS consistency across most vendors (ICC: Varian ProBeam ≈ 0, IBA Proteus ONE = 0.006, Mevion S250i with HYPERSCAN = 0.015), with IBA Proteus PLUS systems showing moderate variation (ICC = 0.156 for the dedicated nozzle, ICC = 0.248, for the universal nozzle). Spot size and angular spread variability were highly vendor‐dependent, ranging from excellent consistency in IBA Proteus ONE to substantial variation in IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle (angular spread ICC = 0.566). Distal falloff maintained excellent consistency across all vendors (ICC < 0.023), indicating reliable energy spread characteristics. Uncertainty band analysis revealed characteristic energy‐dependent patterns, with most systems showing larger uncertainties at lower energies for spot size and angular spread, while IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle exhibited the largest uncertainty bands overall. Percentage deviation analysis demonstrated vendor‐specific clustering patterns, with some systems showing systematic positive or negative deviations from the multi‐vendor mean. Conclusions The reference data provided in this work will help to cross‐check the beam model during treatment planning system commissioning. Furthermore, this information is useful for Monte Carlo applications and research, where beam characteristics are required to set up phase space parameters, thereby avoiding the need to model the entire PTS. Finally, the results of this study will have indispensable educational value by providing valuable insights into the characteristics and capabilities of different PTSs.

Background/Objectives: Proton therapy delivers highly conformal doses to the target area without producing an exit dose, minimizing cumulative doses to healthy liver tissue. This study aims to evaluate current practices, challenges, and variations in the implementation of proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and hypofractionated therapy for liver malignancies, with the goal of providing a technical assessment to promote broader adoption and support future clinical trials. Methods and Materials: An extensive survey was conducted by NRG Oncology across North American proton treatment centers to assess the current practices of proton liver SBRT and hypofractionated therapy. The survey focused on key aspects, including patient selection, prescription and normal tissue constraints, simulation and motion management, treatment planning, quality assurance (QA), treatment delivery, and the use of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Results: This survey captures the current practice patterns and status of proton SBRT and hypofractionated therapy in liver cancer treatment. Proton therapy is increasingly preferred for treating inoperable liver malignancies due to its ability to minimize healthy tissue exposure. However, the precision required for proton therapy presents challenges, particularly in managing uncertainties and target motion during high-dose fractions and short treatment courses. Survey findings revealed significant variability in clinical practices across centers, highlighting differences in motion management, dose fractionation schedules, and QA protocols. Conclusion: Proton SBRT and hypofractionated therapy offer significant potential for treating liver malignancies. A comprehensive approach involving precise patient selection, treatment planning, and QA is essential for ensuring safety and effectiveness. This survey provides valuable insights into current practices and challenges, offering a foundation for technical recommendations to optimize the use of proton therapy and guide future clinical trials.

Abstract Background: A range pull-back device, such as a machine-related range shifter (MRS) or a universal patient-related range shifter (UPRS), is needed in pencil beam scanning technique to treat shallow tumors. Methods: three UPRS made by QFix (Avondale, PA, USA) allow treating targets across the body: U-shaped bolus (UB), anterior lateral bolus (ALB) and couch top bolus (CTB). HN patients who used the UPRS were tested. The in-air spot sizes were measured and compared in this study at snout positions: 15 cm, 25 cm, and 35 cm. A solid water phantom with the ALB placed at 0, 10 and 20 cm air gaps to the phantom surface was also measured using a single-field optimized pencil beam scanning field. The two dimensional dose maps at the middle of the spread-out Bragg peak were measured using ion chamber array MatriXX PT (IBA-Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) located at iso-center and compared with the treatment planning system. Results: A UPRS can be consistently placed close to the patient and maintains a relatively small spot size resulting in improved dose distributions. However, when a UPRS is non-removable (e.g. thick couch top), the quality of volumetric imaging is degraded due to their high Z material construction, hindering the value of Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT). Limitations of using UPRS with small air gaps include reduced couch weight limit, potential collision with patient or immobilization devices and challenges using non-coplanar fields with certain UPRS. Our experience showed the combination of a U-shaped bolus exclusively for a head-and-neck target and an MRS as complimentary for head-and-neck targets as well as for all other treatment sites may be ideal to preserve the dosimetric advantages of pencil beam scanning proton treatments across the body. Conclusion: We have described how to implement UPRS and MRS for various clinical indications using the PBS technique, and comprehensively reviewed the advantage and disadvantages of URPS and MRS. We recommend the removable UB to be employed for the brain and HN treatments only while an automated MRS is used for all proton beams that require RS but not convenient or feasible to UB.