Kang, Yixiu

AbstractPurposeTo validate breast tissue expander metallic port (MP) models in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatments for breast cancer patients with breast tissue expanders.Methods and materialsThree types of MPs taken out of a Mentor CPX4, a Natrelle 133, and a PMT Integra breast tissue expanders and a 650 cc saline filled Mentor CPX4 expander were placed on top of acrylic slabs, and scanned using a Siemens Somatom Definition AS Open RT CT scanner. Structure templates for each of the MPs were designed within Eclipse TPS. The CT numbers for the metallic parts were overridden to reflect measured or calculated relative proton stopping powers (RPSPs). Mock targets were contoured in acrylic to represent postmastectomy chest‐wall radiation therapy (PMRT) targets. Plans with different beam incident angles were optimized using the Eclipse TPS to deliver uniform prescription dose to the target using Hitachi Probeat‐V PBS beams. Eclipse calculated doses and an in‐house Monte Carlo (MC) code calculated doses were compared to the measured Gafchromic EBT3 film doses in acrylic.ResultsTPS/MC and film dose comparison results showed that (1) 3%/2 mm/10% threshold Gamma pass rates were better than 90.8% in the acrylic target region for all plans; (2) comparing TPS and film doses for the individual beam plans in the MP dose shadow areas, the area with dose difference above 5% ([ΔA] 5%) ranged from 1.1 to 5.0 cm2, and the maximum dose difference ([ΔD] 0.01 cm2) ranged from 12.5% to 25.0%; (3) comparing MC and film doses for the individual beam plans in the MP dose shadow areas, the (ΔA) 5% varied from 1.1 to 2.9 cm2 and (ΔD) 0.01 cm2 varied from 8.5% to 24.2%; (4) for a plan composed of three individual beams treating through the Mentor CPX4 expander, the TPS (ΔA) 5% was less than 0.13 cm2, and the (ΔD) 0.01 cm2 was less than 6% in the MP dose shadow areas.ConclusionsIt is feasible to treat patients with tissue expanders using multiple PBS beams using a structure template with CT number overridden to represent the measured/calculated RPSP for MPs for PBS treatment planning. MC dose was more accurate than analytical dose in the areas with high dose gradient caused by the density heterogeneity of the breast tissue expander MPs.

AbstractPurposeTo demonstrate that variation in chemical composition has a negligible effect on the mapping curve from relative electron density (RED) to proton stopping power ratio (SPR), and to establish the theoretical framework of using Megavoltage (MV) computed tomography (CT), instead of kilovoltage (kV) dual energy CT, to accurately estimate proton SPR.MethodsA simulation study was performed to evaluate the effect of chemical composition variation on kVCT number and proton SPR. The simulation study involved both reference and simulated human tissues. The reference human tissues, together with their physical densities and chemical compositions, came from the ICRP publication 23. The simulated human tissues were created from the reference human tissues assuming that elemental percentage weight followed a Gaussian distribution. For all tissues, kVCT number and proton SPR were obtained through (a) theoretical calculation from tissue’s physical density and chemical composition which served as the ground truth, and (b) estimation from RED using the calibration curves established from the stoichiometric method. Deviations of the estimated values from the calculated values were quantified as errors in using RED to estimate kVCT number and proton SPR.ResultsGiven a chemical composition variation of 5% (1σ) of the nominal percentage weights, the total estimation error of using RED to estimate kVCT number was 0.34%, 0.62%, and 0.77% and the total estimation error of using RED to estimate proton SPR was 0.30%, 0.22%, and 0.16% for fat tissues, non‐fat soft tissues and bone tissues, respectively.ConclusionChemical composition had a negligible effect on the method of using RED to determine proton SPR. RED itself is sufficient to accurately determine proton SPR. MVCT number maintains a superb linear relationship with RED because it is highly dominated by Compton scattering. Therefore, MVCT has great potential in reducing the proton range uncertainty.

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.

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.