Charyyev, Serdar

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.

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.

AbstractPurposeMetallic implants have been correlated to local control failure for spinal sarcoma and chordoma patients due to the uncertainty of implant delineation from computed tomography (CT). Such uncertainty can compromise the proton Monte Carlo dose calculation (MCDC) accuracy. A component method is proposed to determine the dimension and volume of the implants from CT images.MethodsThe proposed component method leverages the knowledge of surgical implants from medical supply vendors to predefine accurate contours for each implant component, including tulips, screw bodies, lockers, and rods. A retrospective patient study was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the method. The reference implant materials and samples were collected from patient medical records and vendors, Medtronic and NuVasive. Additional CT images with extensive features, such as extended Hounsfield units and various reconstruction diameters, were used to quantify the uncertainty of implant contours.ResultsFor in vivo patient implant estimation, the reference and the component method differences were 0.35, 0.17, and 0.04 cm3for tulips, screw bodies, and rods, respectively. The discrepancies by a conventional threshold method were 5.46, 0.76, and 0.05 cm3, respectively. The mischaracterization of implant materials and dimensions can underdose the clinical target volume coverage by 20 cm3for a patient with eight lumbar implants. The tulip dominates the dosimetry uncertainty as it can be made from titanium or cobalt–chromium alloys by different vendors.ConclusionsA component method was developed and demonstrated using phantom and patient studies with implants. The proposed method provides more accurate implant characterization for proton MCDC and can potentially enhance the treatment quality for proton therapy. The current proof‐of‐concept study is limited to the implant characterization for lumbar spine. Future investigations could be extended to cervical spine and dental implants for head‐and‐neck patients where tight margins are required to spare organs at risk.