Dong, Lei

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.

AbstractBackgroundAAPM Task Group (TG) 275 was charged with developing practical, evidence‐based recommendations for physics plan and chart review clinical processes for radiation therapy. As part of this charge, and to characterize practices and clinical processes, a survey of the medical physics community was developed and conducted. Detailed analyses and trends based on the survey that exceeded TG report length constraints are presented herein.AimsThe design, development, and detailed results of the TG‐ 275 survey as well as statistical analysis and trends are described in detail. This is complementary material to the TG 275 report.Methods and materialsThe survey consisted of 100 multiple‐choice questions divided into four main sections: 1) Demographics, 2) Initial Plan Check, 3) On‐Treatment, and 4) End‐of‐Treatment Chart Check. The survey was released to all AAPM members who self‐reported working in the radiation oncology field, and it was kept open for 7 weeks. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. To study practice differences, tests of association were performed using data grouped by four demographic questions: 1) Institution Type, 2) Average number of patients treated daily, 3) Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record, and 4) Perceived Culture of Safety.ResultsThe survey captured 1370 non‐duplicate entries from the United States and Canada. Differences across practices were grouped and presented based on Process‐Based and Check‐Specific questions. A risk‐based summary was created to show differences amongst the four demographic questions for checks associated with the highest risk failure modes identified by TG‐275.ConclusionThe TG‐275 survey captured a baseline of practices on initial plan, on‐treatment, and end‐of‐treatment checks across a wide variety of clinics and institutions. The results of test of association showed practice heterogeneities as a function of demographic characteristics. Survey data were successfully used to inform TG‐275 recommendations.

Abstract Dose uncertainty induced by respiratory motion remains a major concern for treating thoracic and abdominal lesions using particle beams. This Task Group report reviews the impact of tumor motion and dosimetric considerations in particle radiotherapy, current motion‐management techniques, and limitations for different particle‐beam delivery modes (i.e., passive scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil‐beam scanning). Furthermore, the report provides guidance and risk analysis for quality assurance of the motion‐management procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy, and discusses future development and emerging motion‐management strategies. This report supplements previously published AAPM report TG76, and considers aspects of motion management that are crucial to the accurate and safe delivery of particle‐beam therapy. To that end, this report produces general recommendations for commissioning and facility‐specific dosimetric characterization, motion assessment, treatment planning, active and passive motion‐management techniques, image guidance and related decision‐making, monitoring throughout therapy, and recommendations for vendors. Key among these recommendations are that: (1) facilities should perform thorough planning studies (using retrospective data) and develop standard operating procedures that address all aspects of therapy for any treatment site involving respiratory motion; (2) a risk‐based methodology should be adopted for quality management and ongoing process improvement.

Abstract The treatment of cancer with proton radiation therapy was first suggested in 1946 followed by the first treatments in the 1950s. As of 2020, almost 200 000 patients have been treated with proton beams worldwide and the number of operating proton therapy (PT) facilities will soon reach one hundred. PT has long moved from research institutions into hospital-based facilities that are increasingly being utilized with workflows similar to conventional radiation therapy. While PT has become mainstream and has established itself as a treatment option for many cancers, it is still an area of active research for various reasons: the advanced dose shaping capabilities of PT cause susceptibility to uncertainties, the high degrees of freedom in dose delivery offer room for further improvements, the limited experience and understanding of optimizing pencil beam scanning, and the biological effect difference compared to photon radiation. In addition to these challenges and opportunities currently being investigated, there is an economic aspect because PT treatments are, on average, still more expensive compared to conventional photon based treatment options. This roadmap highlights the current state and future direction in PT categorized into four different themes, ‘improving efficiency’, ‘improving planning and delivery’, ‘improving imaging’, and ‘improving patient selection’.

Background While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high‐quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. Aims The goal of TG‐275 is to provide practical, evidence‐based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. Methods The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high‐dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end‐of‐treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk‐informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest‐risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3‐week open‐comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. Results The highest‐risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end‐of‐treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103‐question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self‐reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. Discussion Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. Conclusions TG‐275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.

Respiratory motion is traditionally assessed using tumor motion magnitude. In proton therapy, respiratory motion causes density variations along the beam path that result in uncertainties of proton range. This work has investigated the use of water‐equivalent thickness (WET) to quantitatively assess the effects of respiratory motion on calculated dose in passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT). A cohort of 29 locally advanced non‐small cell lung cancer patients treated with 87 PSPT treatment fields were selected for analysis. The variation in WET (ΔWET) along each field was calculated between exhale and inhale phases of the simulation four‐dimensional computed tomography. The change in calculated dose (ΔDose) between full‐inhale and full‐exhale phase was quantified for each field using dose differences, 3D gamma analysis, and differential area under the curve (ΔAUC) analysis. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between ΔDose and ΔWET. Three PSPT plans were redesigned using field angles to minimize variations in ΔWET and compared to the original plans. The median ΔWET over 87 treatment fields ranged from 1‐9 mm, while the ΔWET 95th percentile value ranged up to 42 mm. The ΔWET was significantly correlated to the ΔDose for all metrics analyzed. The patient plans that were redesigned using ΔWET analysis to select field angles were more robust to the effects of respiratory motion, as ΔAUC values were reduced by more than 60% in all three cases. The tumor motion magnitude alone does not capture the potential dosimetric error due to respiratory motion because the proton range is sensitive to the motion of all patient anatomy. The use of ΔWET has been demonstrated to identify situations where respiratory motion can impact the calculated dose. Angular analysis of ΔWET may be capable of designing radiotherapy plans that are more robust to the effects of respiratory motion.PACS number(s): 87.55.‐x