Gustafson, Jon M.

Abstract Background Proton therapy offers precise tumor targeting while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissue, making it especially valuable for treating tumors near critical organs and in pediatric patients. However, its success depends on accurate beam delivery, requiring rigorous quality assurance (QA) to maintain treatment precision and effectiveness. Purpose This study aims to standardize the measurement of key aspects of proton therapy delivery, such as gantry and couch isocentricity, spot position accuracy, and spot size consistency. The goal is to enhance the delivery accuracy of proton therapy across various clinical settings, improving patient outcomes. Methods The QA framework uses the Octopoint phantom, Gafchromic film, and spot position monitor (SPM) log data to evaluate proton beam isocentricity, spot position, and spot size. The Octopoint phantom, made from acrylic, was used with Gafchromic films at various gantry and couch angles to measure isocentricity. MATLAB tools were used to analyze spot positions, and SPM logs provided verification. Sensitivity tests were conducted to assess the system's response to intentional shifts and errors, ensuring alignment with clinical QA standards. Results The Octopoint phantom's stepwise two‐dimensional (2D) fitting process, validated against film‐measured dose profiles, accurately identified beam and ball bearing (BB) centroid locations. Isocentricity tests conducted over 8 months across four gantries demonstrated consistent beam‐to‐BB radial offsets. The phantom showed excellent repeatability, with a maximum standard deviation of 0.1 mm across various couch‐gantry combinations. Sensitivity testing across all axes revealed a strong alignment between intended shifts and measured values. Over the course of a year, film measurements tracked spot position and size consistency, with deviations remaining within acceptable clinical limits. Comparisons with SPM data further confirmed the system's reliability in maintaining beam accuracy across different gantry angles and energy levels. Conclusions This study presents a reliable QA framework for ensuring precision in proton therapy delivery. By combining the Octopoint phantom, Gafchromic film analysis, and SPM log file evaluation, we effectively measured isocentricity, spot position accuracy, and spot size stability. The framework demonstrated adaptability across various clinical QA tasks, enhancing the accuracy and safety of proton therapy treatments.

AbstractPurposeTo investigate the dependency of dose‐volume histogram (DVH) behavior and precision on underlying discretization using shapes and dose distributions with known analytical DVHs for five commercial DVH calculators.MethodsDVHs and summary metrics were extracted from all five systems using synthetic cone and cylinder objects for which the true volume and DVH curves were known. Trends in the curves and metrics were explored by varying the underlying voxelization of the CT image, structure set, and dose grid as well by varying the geometry of the structure and direction of a linear dose gradient. Using synthetic structures allowed for comparison with ground truth DVH curves to assess their accuracy while an algorithm was additionally developed to assess the precision of each system. The precision was calculated with a novel algorithm that treats any “stair step” behavior in a DVH curve as an uncertainty band and calculates the width, characterized as a percent difference, of the band for various DVH metrics. The underlying voxelization was additionally changed and DVHs were extracted for two clinical examples. The details of how each system calculated DVHs were also investigated and tendencies in the calculated curves, metrics, and precision were related to choices made in the calculation methodology.ResultsCalculation methodology differences that had a noticeable impact on the DVH curves and summary metrics include supersampling beyond the input grids and interpretation of the superior and inferior ends of the structures. Among the systems studied, the median precision ranged from 0.902% to 3.22%, and interquartile ranges varied from 1.09% to 3.91%.ConclusionsCommercial dose‐evaluation solutions can calculate different DVH curves, structure volume measures, and dose statistics for the same input data due to differences in their calculation methodologies. This study highlights the importance of understanding and investigating the DVH calculation when considering a new clinical system and when using more than one system for data transfer.