Bues, Martin

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.

PurposeApproximate dose calculation methods were used in the nominal dose distribution and the perturbed dose distributions due to uncertainties in a commercial treatment planning system (CTPS) for robust optimization in intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We aimed to investigate whether the approximations influence plan quality, robustness, and interplay effect of the resulting IMPT plans for the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer patients.Materials and methodsTen consecutively treated locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were selected. Two IMPT plans were created for each patient using our in‐house developed TPS, named “Solo,” and also the CTPS, EclipseTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively. The plans were designed to deliver prescription doses to internal target volumes (ITV) drawn by a physician on averaged four‐dimensional computed tomography (4D‐CT). Solo plans were imported back to CTPS, and recalculated in CTPS for fair comparison. Both plans were further verified for each patient by recalculating doses in the inhalation and exhalation phases to ensure that all plans met clinical requirements. Plan robustness was quantified on all phases using dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) indices in the worst‐case scenario. The interplay effect was evaluated for every plan using an in‐house developed software, which randomized starting phases of each field per fraction and accumulated dose in the exhalation phase based on the patient's breathing motion pattern and the proton spot delivery in a time‐dependent fashion. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test.ResultsCompared to the plans generated using CTPS on the averaged CT, Solo plans had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity (normalized by the prescription dose) in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.04% vs 96.28%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.020; ITV D5%–D95%: 7.20% vs 9.03%, P = 0.049] while all DVH indices were comparable in the nominal scenario. On the inhalation phase, Solo plans had better target dose coverage and cord Dmax in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.36% vs 98.45%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.014; cord Dmax: 20.07 vs 23.71 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027] with better target coverage and cord Dmax in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 97.89% vs 96.47%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 24.57 vs 28.14 Gy(RBE), P = 0.037]. On the exhalation phase, similar phenomena were observed in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.63% vs 98.87%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 19.67 vs 23.66 Gy(RBE), P = 0.039] and in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.20% vs 96.74%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.027; cord Dmax: 23.47 vs 27.93 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027]. In terms of interplay effect, plans generated by Solo had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity, less hot spots, and lower esophageal Dmean, and cord Dmax [ITV D95%: 101.81% vs 98.68%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.002; ITV D5%–D95%: 2.94% vs 7.51%, P = 0.002; cord Dmax: 18.87 vs 22.29 Gy(RBE), P = 0.014].ConclusionsSolo‐generated IMPT plans provide improved cord sparing, better target robustness in all considered phases, and reduced interplay effect compared with CTPS. Consequently, the approximation methods currently used in commercial TPS programs may have space for improvement in generating optimal IMPT plans for patient cases with locally advanced lung cancer.

BackgroundEsophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small‐spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects.Methods35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small‐spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase‐averaged 4D‐CT's. The dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose.ResultsIn the nominal scenario, small‐spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE], liver V30Gy[RBE], stomach V45Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, V5Gy[RBE], and V20Gy[RBE], cord Dmax and , liver Dmean, heart V20Gy[RBE], and V30Gy[RBE], but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95%, , and D5%‐D95%, CTVlow D95%, heart Dmean, and V40Gy[RBE], requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small‐spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small‐spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.

159 Background: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with small spot size has the potential to reduce dose to normal tissues but also introduces new confounding factors such as setup uncertainty, range uncertainty, and interplay effects due to breathing motion. We investigated plan quality and robustness of IMPT with small spot size for distal esophageal adenocarcinoma (DEA). Methods: 19 patients with DEA treated by IMPT were retrospectively evaluated. Spot sizes ranged from 2 to 6mm, with spot spacing of 5mm. All plans were generated using a commercial treatment planning system. In-house-developed dose-evaluation software modeled time-dependent spot delivery to incorporate interplay effects. Dose-volume-histogram (DVH) indices were used to evaluate plan quality and robustness was evaluated using the DVH band method. Results: For plan quality, median values of clinical target volume D95% and D5%-D95% (normalized to the prescribed doses), total lung mean dose, heart mean dose, and cord Dmax were 1.014, 0.035, 3.82Gy[RBE], 7.73Gy[RBE], 39.16Gy[RBE], respectively. For plan robustness, median band widths of the aforementioned DVH indices were 0.018, 0.048, 0.60Gy[RBE], 4.17Gy[RBE], and 2.36Gy[RBE], respectively. For interplay effects, median values of the aforementioned DVH indices were 0.99, 0.061, 4.07Gy[RBE], 7.87Gy[RBE], and 39.66Gy[RBE], respectively. Seven patients underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and five, three, and one of them achieved downstaging, near complete response, and pathologic complete response, respectively; R0 resection was achieved in all cases. For all patients, acute side effects were mostly limited to grades 1-2 only. The only grade 3 adverse events were related to feeding tube placement (8 patients); there were no RT-induced pneumonitis or other lung-related toxicities. Conclusions: IMPT plans with small spot size for DEA have good target dose coverage, homogeneity and normal tissue protection. Treatment plans are also robust to uncertainties and interplay effects. Early clinical results demonstrate low acute toxicity and encouraging clinical and pathologic response.

PurposeIntensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is known to be sensitive to patient setup and range uncertainty issues. Multiple robust optimization methods have been developed to mitigate the impact of these uncertainties. Here, we propose a new robust optimization method, which provides an alternative way of robust optimization in IMPT, and is clinically practical, which will enable users to control the balance between nominal plan quality and plan robustness in a user‐defined fashion.MethodWe calculated nine individual dose distributions which corresponded to one nominal and eight extreme scenarios caused by patient setup and proton beam's range uncertainties. For each voxel, the normalized dose interval (NDI) is defined as the full dose range variation divided by the maximum dose in all uncertainty scenarios (NDI = [max – min dose]/max dose), which was then used to calculate the normalized dose interval volume histogram (NDIVH) curves. The areas under the NDIVH curves were used to quantify plan robustness. A normalized dose interval volume constraint (NDIVC) applied to the target was incorporated to specify the desired robustness which was user‐defined. Users could then explore the trade‐off between nominal plan quality and plan robustness by adjusting the position of the NDIVCs on the NDIVH curves freely. We benchmarked our method using one lung, five head and neck (H&N), and three prostate cases by comparing our results to those derived using the voxel‐wise worst‐case robust optimization.ResultsUsing the benchmark cases, our new method achieved quality IMPT plans comparable to those derived from the voxel‐wise worst‐case robust optimization for both nominal plan quality and plan robustness in general; even more conformal and more homogeneous target dose distributions in some cases, if proper NDIVCs were applied. The AUC under NDIVH, as a precise quantitative index of plan robustness, was consistent with DVH bandwidths. Additionally, we demonstrated the feasibility of adjusting the position of NDIVCs in the NDIVH curves which allowed users to explore the trade‐off between nominal plan quality and plan robustness.ConclusionsThe NDIVH‐based robust optimization method provided a novel and individualized way of robust optimization in IMPT, and enables users to adjust the balance between nominal plan quality and plan robustness in a user‐defined fashion. This method is applicable for continued improvement and developing the next generation of IMPT planning algorithms in the future.

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.