Shen, Jiajian

Purpose: To describe and validate the dose calculation algorithm of an independent second-dose check software for spot scanning proton delivery systems with full width at half maximum between 5 and 14 mm and with a negligible spray component. Methods: The analytical dose engine of our independent second-dose check software employs an altered pencil beam algorithm with 3 lateral Gaussian components. It was commissioned using Geant4 and validated by comparison to point dose measurements at several depths within spread-out Bragg peaks of varying ranges, modulations, and field sizes. Water equivalent distance was used to compensate for inhomogeneous geometry. Twelve patients representing different disease sites were selected for validation. Dose calculation results in water were compared to a fast Monte Carlo code and ionization chamber array measurements using dose planes and dose profiles as well as 2-dimensional–3-dimensional and 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis. Results in patient geometry were compared to Monte Carlo simulation using dose–volume histogram indices, 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis, and inpatient dose profiles. Results: Dose engine model parameters were tuned to achieve 1.5% agreement with measured point doses. The in-water γ-index passing rates for the 12 patients using 3%/2 mm criteria were 99.5% ± 0.5% compared to Monte Carlo. The average inpatient γ-index analysis passing rate compared to Monte Carlo was 95.8% ± 2.9%. The average difference in mean dose to the clinical target volume between the dose engine and Monte Carlo was −0.4% ± 1.0%. For a typical plan, dose calculation time was 2 minutes on an inexpensive workstation. Conclusions: Following our commissioning process, the analytical dose engine was validated for all treatment sites except for the lung or for calculating dose–volume histogram indices involving point doses or critical structures immediately distal to target volumes. Monte Carlo simulations are recommended for these scenarios.

PurposeTo clinically implement and comprehensively evaluate two independent methods for beam monitor calibration of scanning proton beam.MethodsSeven proton energies that represent the lowest to highest energy proton beams were selected. Single energy layer circular fields of diameter 15 cm with 2.5 mm spot spacing and 10 times of repainting (FS15cm) were designed for all energies. The effective measurement points of Bragg peak chamber (BPC), advanced Markus chamber (AMC) and farmer chamber (FC) were all aligned to 2 cm depth in water using SSD setup. The BPC and AMC were cross‐calibrated with farmer chamber (FC) using the field FS15cm. In order to evaluate BPC's lateral response uniformity, a collimated narrow proton beam (5.8 mm diameter) was delivered to the active area and edge of the BPC. The dose area product (DAP) was measured using two methods by two BPCs, one AMC and one FC. For method 1, a single spot proton beam was delivered to the geometric center of the BPC. For method 2, the fields FS15cm were delivered to FC and AMC, respectively. Accumulated charges by these chambers were converted to DAPs, and the quantitative difference of DAPs between both methods was calculated. The causes of the uncertainties were discussed, and the advantages of the two methods were compared.ResultsThe two BPCs showed different lateral response uniformity. BPC1 has a uniform response from the center up to a radius of 3.5 cm. BPC2 has a uniform response only to 2 cm and the response dropped 1% to 2% at 3.5 cm from center. BPC2 also has significant over‐response compared to BPC1. A 2.2% systematic error would be transferred to DAP if the over‐response from BPC2 was not considered. The DAPs measured by method 1 with two BPCs and by method 2 with FC and AMC were consistent to 0.5%. The major uncertainty component of method 1 is from the cross‐calibration of the BPC.ConclusionsThe two independent methods for DAP were shown to give consistent results, given the sources of uncertainties were carefully addressed in the measurements. Direct measurement of DAP with BPC is very efficient, but it may be subject to more than 2% systematic error if the BPC lateral response is not carefully evaluated.

PurposeAt our institution, all proton patient plans undergo patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) prior to treatment delivery. For intensity‐modulated proton beam therapy, quality assurance is complex and time consuming, and it may involve multiple measurements per field. We reviewed our PSQA workflow and identified the steps that could be automated and developed solutions to improve efficiency.MethodsWe used the treatment planning system's (TPS) capability to support C# scripts to develop an Eclipse scripting application programming interface (ESAPI) script and automate the preparation of the verification phantom plan for measurements. A local area network (LAN) connection between our measurement equipment and shared database was established to facilitate equipment control, measurement data transfer, and storage. To improve the analysis of the measurement data, a Python script was developed to automatically perform a 2D–3D γ‐index analysis comparing measurements in the plane of a two‐dimensional detector array with TPS predictions in a water phantom for each acquired measurement.ResultsDevice connection via LAN granted immediate access to the plan and measurement information for downstream analysis using an online software suite. Automated scripts applied to verification plans reduced time from preparation steps by at least 50%; time reduction from automating γ‐index analysis was even more pronounced, dropping by a factor of 10. On average, we observed an overall time savings of 55% in completion of the PSQA per patient plan.ConclusionsThe automation of the routine tasks in the PSQA workflow significantly reduced the time required per patient, reduced user fatigue, and frees up system users from routine and repetitive workflow steps allowing increased focus on evaluating key quality metrics.

AbstractPurposeTo compare dosimetric performance of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy for stage III non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods and MaterialsA total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D‐CTs. The dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsCompared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax, heart Dmean, and lung V5 Gy[RBE] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean, but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax, lung Dmean, and V5 Gy[RBE]. Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop a fast method for proton range quality assurance (QA) using a dual step wedge and two‐dimensional (2D) scintillator and to evaluate the robustness, sensitivity, and long‐term reproducibility of this method.MethodsAn in‐house customized dual step wedge and a 2D scintillator were developed to measure proton ranges. Proton beams with homogenous fluence were delivered through wedge, and the images captured by the scintillator were used to calculate the proton ranges by a simple trigonometric method. The range measurements of 97 energies, comprising all clinically available synchrotron energies at our facility (ranges varying from 4 to 32 cm) were repeated ten times in all four gantry rooms for range baseline values. They were then used for evaluating room‐to‐room range consistencies. The robustness to setup uncertainty was evaluated by measuring ranges with ±2 mm setup deviations in the x, y, and z directions. The long‐term reproducibility was evaluated by 1 month of daily range measurements by this method.ResultsRanges of all 97 energies were measured in less than 10 minutes including setup time. The reproducibility in a single day and daily over 1 month is within 0.1 and 0.15 mm, respectively. The method was very robust to setup uncertainty, with measured range consistencies within 0.15 mm for ±2 mm couch shifts. The method was also sensitive enough for validating range consistencies among gantry rooms and for detecting small range variations.ConclusionsThe new method of using a dual step wedge and scintillator for proton range QA was efficient, highly reproducible, and robust. This method of proton range QA was highly feasible and appealing from a workflow point of view.

PurposeThe aim of this work was to develop an efficient daily quality assurance (QA) program with strict tolerance levels for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiotherapy featuring simultaneous dosimetric testing on a single, nonuniform field.MethodsA nonuniform field measuring beam output, proton range, and spot position was designed for delivery onto a Sun Nuclear Daily‐QA 3 device. A custom acrylic block permitted simultaneous measurement of low‐ and high‐energy proton ranges in addition to beam output. Sensitivities to output, range, and spot position were evaluated to quantitate the device's response. Reproducibility tests were used to identify and control sources of measurement error as well as to assess the QA procedure's robustness. This procedure was implemented in each of our four treatment rooms independently; 4–6 months of daily QA measurements were collected.ResultsThe 1% output, 0.5 mm range, and 1.5 mm spot position tolerances derived from preliminary tests were tighter overall than tolerances found in the literature and equivalent to the limits used for proton system commissioning. The simplicity and automation of the procedure reduced the time required for daily QA to 10 min per treatment room, and competition for beam between multiple treatment rooms was minimized.ConclusionsAn efficient daily PBS QA procedure can be performed using a single, nonuniform field on a nondedicated QA device. A thorough quantitation of the device's response and careful control of measurement uncertainties allowed daily tolerances to match commissioning standards.

AbstractMonte Carlo (MC) simulation has been used to generate commissioning data for the beam modeling of treatment planning system (TPS). We have developed a method called radial projection (RP) for postprocessing of MC‐simulation‐generated data. We used the RP method to reduce the statistical uncertainty of the lateral profile of proton pencil beams with axial symmetry. The RP method takes advantage of the axial symmetry of dose distribution to use the mean value of multiple independent scores as the representative score. Using the mean as the representative value rather than any individual score results in substantial reduction in statistical uncertainty. Herein, we present the concept and step‐by‐step implementation of the RP method, as well as show the advantage of the RP method over conventional measurement methods for generating lateral profile. Lateral profiles generated by both methods were compared to demonstrate the uncertainty reduction qualitatively, and standard error comparison was performed to demonstrate the reduction quantitatively. The comparisons showed that statistical uncertainty was reduced substantially by the RP method. Using the RP method to postprocess MC data, the corresponding MC simulation time was reduced by a factor of 10 without quality reduction in the generated result from the MC data. We concluded that the RP method is an effective technique to increase MC simulation efficiency for generating lateral profiles for axially symmetric pencil beams.

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.

PurposeTo implement and evaluate a novel and fast method for proton range verification by using a planar scintillator and step wedge.MethodsA homogenous proton pencil beam plan with 35 energies was designed and delivered to a 2D flat scintillator with a step wedge. The measurement was repeated 15 times (3 different days, 5 times per day). The scintillator image was smoothed, the Bragg peak and distal fall off regions were fitted by an analytical equation, and the proton range was calculated using simple trigonometry. The accuracy of this method was verified by comparing the measured ranges to those obtained using an ionization chamber and a scanning water tank, the gold standard. The reproducibility was evaluated by comparing the ranges over 15 repeated measurements. The sensitivity was evaluated by delivering to same beam to the system with a film inserted under the wedge.ResultsThe range accuracy of all 35 proton energies measured over 3 days was within 0.2 mm. The reproducibility in 15 repeated measurements for all 35 proton ranges was ±0.045 mm. The sensitivity to range variation is 0.1 mm for the worst case. This efficient procedure permits measurement of 35 proton ranges in less than 3 min. The automated data processing produces results immediately. The setup of this system took less than 5 min. The time saving by this new method is about two orders of magnitude when compared with the time for water tank range measurements.ConclusionsA novel method using a scintillator with a step wedge to measure the proton range was implemented and evaluated. This novel method is fast and sensitive, and the proton range measured by this method was accurate and highly reproducible.

AbstractThis work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso‐center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.