Ding, Xuanfeng

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.

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and plan quality of spot‐scanning proton arc therapy (SPArc) using a synchrotron‐accelerator‐based proton therapy system compared to intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT).ApproachFive representative disease sites, including head and neck, lung, liver, brain chordoma, and prostate cancers, were retrospectively selected. Both IMPT and SPArc plans are generated with the HITACHI ProBEAT PBS system's minimum MU constraints and physics beam model. The SPArc plans are generated with 2.5° sampling frequency. The static delivery time was simulated based on the previously published synchrotron delivery sequence model, and the dynamic delivery time was simulated using a proton arc gantry mechanical model integrated with the synchrotron delivery sequence. Both dosimetric plan quality and delivery efficiency are evaluated.Main resultsA superior plan quality is reached compared with the IMPT plans generated for the same disease site. However, a relatively prolonged static and dynamic delivery time post new challenge, as static time increased by 49.22% and dynamic time 59.10% on average.SignificanceThis study presents the first simulation results of delivering the SPArc plans using a synchrotron‐accelerated proton therapy system. The result shows its feasibility and limitations, which could guide future development.

AbstractPurposeThe time structures of proton spot delivery in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) radiation therapy are essential in many clinical applications. This study aims to characterize the time structures of proton PBS delivered by both synchrotron and synchrocyclotron accelerators using a non‐invasive technique based on scattered particle tracking.MethodsA pixelated semiconductor detector, AdvaPIX‐Timepix3, with a temporal resolution of 1.56 ns, was employed to measure time of arrival of secondary particles generated by a proton beam. The detector was placed laterally to the high‐flux area of the beam in order to allow for single particle detection and not interfere with the treatment. The detector recorded counts of radiation events, their deposited energy and the timestamp associated with the single events. Individual recorded events and their temporal characteristics were used to analyze beam time structures, including energy layer switch time, magnet switch time, spot switch time, and the scanning speeds in the x and y directions. All the measurements were repeated 30 times on three dates, reducing statistical uncertainty.ResultsThe uncertainty of the measured energy layer switch times, magnet switch time, and the spot switch time were all within 1% of average values. The scanning speeds uncertainties were within 1.5% and are more precise than previously reported results. The measurements also revealed continuous sub‐milliseconds proton spills at a low dose rate for the synchrotron accelerator and radiofrequency pulses at 7 µs and 1 ms repetition time for the synchrocyclotron accelerator.ConclusionThe AdvaPIX‐Timepix3 detector can be used to directly measure and monitor time structures on microseconds scale of the PBS proton beam delivery. This method yielded results with high precision and is completely independent of the machine log files.

AbstractAs we were invited to write an article for celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Medical Physics journal, on something historically significant, commemorative, and exciting happening in the past decades, the first idea came to our mind is the fascinating radiotherapy paradigm shift from conventional fractionation to hypofractionation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). It is historically and clinically significant since as we all know this RT treatment revolution not only reduces treatment duration for patients, but also improves tumor control and cancer treatment outcomes. It is also commemorative and exciting for us medical physicists since the technology development in medical physics has been the main driver for the success of this treatment regimen which requires high precision and accuracy throughout the entire treatment planning and delivery. This article provides an overview of the technological development and clinical trials evolvement in the past 25 years for hypofractionation and SABR, with an outlook to the future improvement.

Abstract Objective . We proposed an experimental approach to build a precise machine-specific beam delivery time (BDT) prediction and delivery sequence model for standard, volumetric, and layer repainting delivery based on a cyclotron accelerator system. Approach . Test fields and clinical treatment plans’ log files were used to experimentally derive three main beam delivery parameters that impacted BDT: energy layer switching time (ELST), spot switching time, and spot drill time. This derived machine-specific model includes standard, volumetric, and layer repainting delivery sequences. A total of 103 clinical treatment fields were used to validate the model. Main results . The study found that ELST is not stochastic in this specific machine. Instead, it is actually the data transmission time or energy selection time, whichever takes longer. The validation showed that the accuracy of each component of the BDT matches well between machine log files and the model’s prediction. The average total BDT was about (−0.74 ± 3.33)% difference compared to the actual treatment log files, which is improved from the current commercial proton therapy system’s prediction (67.22%±26.19%). Significance . An accurate BDT prediction and delivery sequence model was established for an cyclotron-based proton therapy system IBA ProteusPLUS ® . Most institutions could adopt this method to build a machine-specific model for their own proton system.