Back to Authors

Liang, Xiaoying

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 2

Comparative evaluation of the Mayo Clinic Florida microdosimetric kinetic model and mMKM for carbon ion treatment planning: A matRad‐based analysis
Liang, Xiaoying, Park, Chunjoo, Lu, Bo, Tan, Jun , Seckler, Lisa, Cristoforetti, Remo , Inaniwa, Taku, Beltran, Chris J., Hartzell, Shannon , Yaddanapudi, Sridhar , Furutani, Keith M. , Parisi, Alessio , Liang, Xiaoying, Lu, Bo , Inaniwa, Taku , Wahl, Niklas , Beltran, Chris

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics | June 1, 2026 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 5 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/acm2.70645 Get It

Abstract Purpose Modeling relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is central to carbon ion radiotherapy treatment planning. The modified Microdosimetric Kinetic Model (mMKM) is a clinically established RBE framework that has guided treatment protocols at many existing carbon centers, while the Mayo Clinic Florida Microdosimetric Kinetic Model (MCF MKM) is a recently developed alternative. This work aims to implement the MCF MKM in the open‐source treatment planning system matRad and to quantitatively compare its RBE‐weighted dose predictions with those of the clinically established mMKM using identical physical dose distributions across multiple disease sites. These findings will help assess their dosimetric equivalence and inform protocol development for carbon ion radiotherapy at MCF. Methods Monte Carlo simulations of the MCF carbon beamline were performed to generate physical (IDD, LET, lateral spread) and biological base data for integration of each RBE model into matRad . Treatment plans were generated for six patients, each corresponding to a different disease site, using clinical beam configurations with carbon‐reference dose prescriptions, and plans were optimized using the MCF MKM. To isolate differences attributable solely to the RBE model, the resulting physical dose distributions were held fixed and RBE‐weighted doses were recalculated using the mMKM. Dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics and spatial dose‐difference maps were used to compare target coverage and organ‐at‐risk doses between the two models. Results Across patient cases, RBE‐weighted dose distributions from MCF MKM and mMKM showed strong agreement. Differences in target coverage were small, with CTV D95% differing by less than 1.6% across all disease sites and maximum target dose differences not exceeding 0.88%. Organ‐at‐risk dose deviations were limited, with differences of 3.0% or less across evaluated DVH metrics. Spatial dose‐difference maps showed that the largest discrepancies occurred in regions of steep dose gradients near target to organ‐at‐risk interfaces, while overall dose conformity and plan quality remained comparable between the two models. Conclusions: This study served as the first systematic model comparison of the MCF MKM and mMKM within a treatment planning environment. These findings suggest that the MCF MKM and mMKM produce dosimetrically consistent RBE‐weighted dose predictions under realistic planning conditions using carbon‐reference parameters. Accordingly, the fractionation schemes developed from years of clinical experience with mMKM implementations may serve as a practical foundation for protocol development at MCF.
A prospective risk analysis for the clinical commissioning of a dose-driven continuous scanning proton therapy system
Herchko, Steven, Liang, Xiaoying, Beltran, Chris, Liang, Xiaoying, Shen, Jiajian , Furutani, Keith M.

Frontiers in Oncology | May 20, 2026 | Volume: 16 | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.3389/fonc.2026.1826522 Get It

Introduction Proton dose driven continuous scanning (DDCS) is a form of proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) in which the beam may remain on during transitions between successive spots. Mayo Clinic Florida (MCF) is preparing to commission a synchrotron-based proton therapy system designed for DDCS, incorporating novel irradiation control features. Given the novelty and complexity of this system, a systematic risk-based analysis was performed to inform upcoming commissioning strategies. Methods A prospective risk analysis was conducted using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 100 (TG 100) framework. A comprehensive process map of the DDCS irradiation control workflow was developed. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was performed to identify potential delivery system failure modes and to score each failure mode based on occurrence, severity, and lack of detectability. Targeted mitigation and commissioning strategies were then developed to address the highest-risk items. Results Twenty-nine delivery system failure modes were identified. The highest-risk failure modes were specific to DDCS operation. Targeted commissioning strategies were defined, including scan path measurement and modeling, validation of move and flap dose, dose monitor collection efficiency testing, spot position monitor performance evaluation, and verification of control system intervention behavior. Incorporation of these strategies into the commissioning plan reduced the mean RPN by more than 50%. Discussion This work provides a detailed description of the MCF proton DDCS irradiation control system and uses a TG 100 based approach for identifying system-specific risks. As new systems incorporate technologies for which limited guidance exists, institutions must perform their own risk analyses to determine appropriate quality management strategies.