B Clasie

Proton vs carbon ion beams in the definitive radiation treatment of cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Relative to X-ray beams, proton [(1)H] and carbon ion [(12)C] beams provide superior distributions due primarily to their finite range. The principal differences are LET, low for (1)H and high for (12)C, and a narrower penumbra of (12)C beams. Were (12)C to yield a higher TCP for a defined NTCP than (1)H therapy, would LET, fractionation or penumbra width be the basis? METHODS Critical factors of physics, radiation biology of (1)H and (12)C ion beams, neutron therapy and selected reports of TCP and NTCP from (1)H and (12)C irradiation of nine tumor categories are reviewed. RESULTS Outcome results are based on low dose per fraction (1)H and high dose per fraction (12)C therapy. Assessment of the role of LET and dose distribution vs dose fractionation is not now feasible. Available data indicate that TCP increases with BED with (1)H and (12)C TCPs overlaps. Frequencies of GIII NTCPs were higher after (1)H than (12)C treatment. CONCLUSIONS Assessment of the efficacy of (1)H vs(12)C therapy is not feasible, principally due to the dose fractionation differences. Further, there is no accepted policy for defining the CTV-GTV margin nor definition of TCP. Overlaps of (1)H and (12)C ion TCPs at defined BED ranges indicate that TCPs are determined in large measure by dose, BED. Late GIII NTCP was higher in (1)H than (12)C patients, indicating LET as a significant factor. We recommend trials of (1)H vs(12)C with one variable, i.e. LET. The resultant TCP vs NTCP relationship will indicate which beam yields higher TCP for a specified NTCP at a defined dose fractionation.

Assessment of out-of-field absorbed dose and equivalent dose in proton fields

PURPOSE In proton therapy, as in other forms of radiation therapy, scattered and secondary particles produce undesired dose outside the target volume that may increase the risk of radiation-induced secondary cancer and interact with electronic devices in the treatment room. The authors implement a Monte Carlo model of this dose deposited outside passively scattered fields and compare it to measurements, determine the out-of-field equivalent dose, and estimate the change in the dose if the same target volumes were treated with an active beam scanning technique. METHODS Measurements are done with a thimble ionization chamber and the Wellhofer MatriXX detector inside a Lucite phantom with field configurations based on the treatment of prostate cancer and medulloblastoma. The authors use a GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulation, demonstrated to agree well with measurements inside the primary field, to simulate fields delivered in the measurements. The partial contributions to the dose are separated in the simulation by particle type and origin. RESULTS The agreement between experiment and simulation in the out-of-field absorbed dose is within 30% at 10-20 cm from the field edge and 90% of the data agrees within 2 standard deviations. In passive scattering, the neutron contribution to the total dose dominates in the region downstream of the Bragg peak (65%-80% due to internally produced neutrons) and inside the phantom at distances more than 10-15 cm from the field edge. The equivalent doses using 10 for the neutron weighting factor at the entrance to the phantom and at 20 cm from the field edge are 2.2 and 2.6 mSv/Gy for the prostate cancer and cranial medulloblastoma fields, respectively. The equivalent dose at 15-20 cm from the field edge decreases with depth in passive scattering and increases with depth in active scanning. Therefore, active scanning has smaller out-of-field equivalent dose by factors of 30-45 in the entrance region and this factor decreases with depth. CONCLUSIONS The dose deposited immediately downstream of the primary field, in these cases, is dominated by internally produced neutrons; therefore, scattered and scanned fields may have similar risk of second cancer in this region. The authors confirm that there is a reduction in the out-of-field dose in active scanning but the effect decreases with depth. GEANT4 is suitable for simulating the dose deposited outside the primary field. The agreement with measurements is comparable to or better than the agreement reported for other implementations of Monte Carlo models. Depending on the position, the absorbed dose outside the primary field is dominated by contributions from primary protons that may or may not have scattered in the brass collimating devices. This is noteworthy as the quality factor of the low LET protons is well known and the relative dose risk in this region can thus be assessed accurately.

Review on the characteristics of radiation detectors for dosimetry and imaging

The enormous advances in the understanding of human anatomy, physiology and pathology in recent decades have led to ever-improving methods of disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Many of these achievements have been enabled, at least in part, by advances in ionizing radiation detectors. Radiology has been transformed by the implementation of multi-slice CT and digital x-ray imaging systems, with silver halide films now largely obsolete for many applications. Nuclear medicine has benefited from more sensitive, faster and higher-resolution detectors delivering ever-higher SPECT and PET image quality. PET/MR systems have been enabled by the development of gamma ray detectors that can operate in high magnetic fields. These huge advances in imaging have enabled equally impressive steps forward in radiotherapy delivery accuracy, with 4DCT, PET and MRI routinely used in treatment planning and online image guidance provided by cone-beam CT. The challenge of ensuring safe, accurate and precise delivery of highly complex radiation fields has also both driven and benefited from advances in radiation detectors. Detector systems have been developed for the measurement of electron, intensity-modulated and modulated arc x-ray, proton and ion beams, and around brachytherapy sources based on a very wide range of technologies. The types of measurement performed are equally wide, encompassing commissioning and quality assurance, reference dosimetry, in vivo dosimetry and personal and environmental monitoring. In this article, we briefly introduce the general physical characteristics and properties that are commonly used to describe the behaviour and performance of both discrete and imaging detectors. The physical principles of operation of calorimeters; ionization and charge detectors; semiconductor, luminescent, scintillating and chemical detectors; and radiochromic and radiographic films are then reviewed and their principle applications discussed. Finally, a general discussion of the application of detectors for x-ray nuclear medicine and ion beam imaging and dosimetry is presented.

Tissue equivalency of phantom materials for neutron dosimetry in proton therapy

PURPOSE Previous Monte Carlo and experimental studies involving secondary neutrons in proton therapy have employed a number of phantom materials that are designed to represent human tissue. In this study, the authors determined the suitability of common phantom materials for dosimetry of secondary neutrons, specifically for pediatric and intracranial proton therapy treatments. METHODS This was achieved through comparison of the absorbed dose and dose equivalent from neutrons generated within the phantom materials and various ICRP tissues. The phantom materials chosen for comparison were Lucite, liquid water, solid water, and A150 tissue equivalent plastic, These phantom materials were compared to brain, muscle, and adipose tissues. RESULTS The magnitude of the doses observed were smaller than those reported in previous experimental and Monte Carlo studies, which incorporated neutrons generated in the treatment head. The results show that for both neutron absorbed dose and dose equivalent, no single phantom material gives agreement with tissue within 5% at all the points considered. Solid water gave the smallest mean variation with the tissues out of field where neutrons are the primary contributor to the total dose. CONCLUSIONS Of the phantom materials considered, solid water shows best agreement with tissues out of field.

Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and out-of-field cell survival responses to passive scattering and pencil beam scanning proton beam deliveries

The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of passive scattered (PS) and pencil beam scanned (PBS) proton beam delivery techniques for uniform beam configurations was determined by clonogenic survival. The radiobiological impact of modulated beam configurations on cell survival occurring in- or out-of-field for both delivery techniques was determined with intercellular communication intact or physically inhibited. Cell survival responses were compared to those observed using a 6 MV photon beam produced with a linear accelerator. DU-145 cells showed no significant difference in survival response to proton beams delivered by PS and PBS or 6 MV photons taking into account a RBE of 1.1 for protons at the centre of the spread out Bragg peak. Significant out-of-field effects similar to those observed for 6 MV photons were observed for both PS and PBS proton deliveries with cell survival decreasing to 50-60% survival for scattered doses of 0.05 and 0.03 Gy for passive scattered and pencil beam scanned beams respectively. The observed out-of-field responses were shown to be dependent on intercellular communication between the in- and out-of-field cell populations. These data demonstrate, for the first time, a similar RBE between passive and actively scanned proton beams and confirm that out-of-field effects may be important determinants of cell survival following exposure to modulated photon and proton fields.

Effects of spot parameters in pencil beam scanning treatment planning

BACKGROUND Spot size σ (in air at isocenter), interspot spacing d, and spot charge q influence dose delivery efficiency and plan quality in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) treatment planning. The choice and range of parameters varies among different manufacturers. The goal of this work is to demonstrate the influence of the spot parameters on dose quality and delivery in IMPT treatment plans, to show their interdependence, and to make practitioners aware of the spot parameter values for a certain facility. Our study could help as a guideline to make the trade-off between treatment quality and time in existing PBS centers and in future systems. METHODS We created plans for seven patients and a phantom, with different tumor sites and volumes, and compared the effect of small-, medium-, and large-spot widths (σ = 2.5, 5, and 10 mm) and interspot distances (1σ, 1.5σ, and 1.75σ) on dose, spot charge, and treatment time. Moreover, we quantified how postplanning charge threshold cuts affect plan quality and the total number of spots to deliver, for different spot widths and interspot distances. We show the effect of a minimum charge (or MU) cutoff value for a given proton delivery system. RESULTS Spot size had a strong influence on dose: larger spots resulted in more protons delivered outside the target region. We observed dose differences of 2-13 Gy (RBE) between 2.5 mm and 10 mm spots, where the amount of extra dose was due to dose penumbra around the target region. Interspot distance had little influence on dose quality for our patient group. Both parameters strongly influence spot charge in the plans and thus the possible impact of postplanning charge threshold cuts. If such charge thresholds are not included in the treatment planning system (TPS), it is important that the practitioner validates that a given combination of lower charge threshold, interspot spacing, and spot size does not result in a plan degradation. Low average spot charge occurs for small spots, small interspot distances, many beam directions, and low fractional dose values. CONCLUSIONS The choice of spot parameters values is a trade-off between accelerator and beam line design, plan quality, and treatment efficiency. We recommend the use of small spot sizes for better organ-at-risk sparing and lateral interspot distances of 1.5σ to avoid long treatment times. We note that plan quality is influenced by the charge cutoff. Our results show that the charge cutoff can be sufficiently large (i.e., 106 protons) to accommodate limitations on beam delivery systems. It is, therefore, not necessary per se to include the charge cutoff in the treatment planning optimization such that Pareto navigation (e.g., as practiced at our institution) is not excluded and optimal plans can be obtained without, perhaps, a bias from the charge cutoff. We recommend that the impact of a minimum charge cut impact is carefully verified for the spot sizes and spot distances applied or that it is accommodated in the TPS.

Impact of spot charge inaccuracies in IMPT treatments

Background: Spot charge is one parameter of pencil‐beam scanning dose delivery system whose accuracy is typically high but whose required value has not been investigated. In this work we quantify the dose impact of spot charge inaccuracies on the dose distribution in patients. Knowing the effect of charge errors is relevant for conventional proton machines, as well as for new generation proton machines, where ensuring accurate charge may be challenging. Methods: Through perturbation of spot charge in treatment plans for seven patients and a phantom, we evaluated the dose impact of absolute (up to 5× 106 protons) and relative (up to 30%) charge errors. We investigated the dependence on beam width by studying scenarios with small, medium and large beam sizes. Treatment plan statistics included the Γ passing rate, dose‐volume‐histograms and dose differences. Results: The allowable absolute charge error for small spot plans was about 2× 106 protons. Larger limits would be allowed if larger spots were used. For relative errors, the maximum allowable error size for small, medium and large spots was about 13%, 8% and 6% for small, medium and large spots, respectively. Conclusions: Dose distributions turned out to be surprisingly robust against random spot charge perturbation. Our study suggests that ensuring spot charge errors as small as 1–2% as is commonly aimed at in conventional proton therapy machines, is clinically not strictly needed.

SU‐E‐T‐512: Monte Carlo Dose Verification of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy

Purpose: To verify a clinical pencil (PB) beam dose calculation algorithm for scanned beam intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), using TOPAS (TOol for PArticle Simulation), a GEANT4 based Monte Carlo (MC) simulation system. Methods: Seven patients, previously treated with IMPT for various treatment sites and prescriptions, were selected from our patient database. Proton fluence maps of the treated plans were exported for each field from our clinical treatment planning system (ASTROID) and imported to TOPAS along with the patient and beam geometry. The absolute dose distribution of each individual beam was calculated and compared to the PB algorithm‐based calculation from ASTROID. Results: The differences observed in mean and median target doses were less than ±1% for all cases, while D02 and D98 (surrogates for maximum and minimum dose values respectively) differed by less than ±3% for the majority of beams. Differences in the mean dose for the organs at risk (OARs) ranged from −8.9% to 3.7%, with reference to MC calculation, with an average over all the OARs of −0.1%, indicating no systematic over‐or under‐estimation of the dose by the PB algorithm. 3D gamma analysis (2%/2mm) for the PB to MC dose comparison resulted in an average 95.2% (±5.0) of the target volume having an absolute gamma value equal or less than 1 and 99.2% (±1.2%) equal or less than 2. For the healthy tissue receiving at least 5% of the target mean dose, the corresponding percentages were 99.6% (±0.3%) and 99.9% (±0.1%). Conclusion: We have clinically implemented MC for IMPT plan recalculation. Our PB calculation algorithm for IMPT was found to be in overall good agreement with MC calculations. Clinically significant deviations in OAR mean dose can be attributed to lung tissue or bone anatomy in the beam path.

SU‐E‐T‐723: Pencil Beam Depth‐Dose Distributions in the Astroid TPS

Purpose: To describe the commissioning of a database of depth‐dose distributions for the dose calculation in Astroid. Methods: A database of Bragg peaks with zero energy width is generated by GEANT4 Monte Carlo. The Bragg peak distributions are smeared with a Gaussian in energy and tuned to match relative dose distributions measured with a Bragg peak chamber (BPC). BPC values are corrected for dose deposited outside of the chamber from scattered and secondary radiation in the pencil beam halo. Individual relative Bragg peaks are calibrated to match the absolute dose measured with a Markus ionization chamber. The uncertainty introduced by this halo correction is minimized by selecting a depth for calibration with the Markus chamber that minimizes the size of the correction. A Faraday cup gives the delivered dose per gigaproton. An SOBP is constructed from the database and the absolute dose in the plateau region is verified with an Exradin T1 ionization chamber. Results: The energy RMS spread decreases with energy from 0.9 to 0.2%. The correction for dose deposited outside the Bragg peak chamber is less than +/−4%. The uniformity of SOBPs generated between 10 to 30 g/cm2 is 2% with a global scaling factor of 1.01 to give the best agreement with the measured dose. Conclusions: It is important to have the correct Range, dose, and relative shape of Bragg peaks, otherwise the delivered SOBPs can be tilted or do not match the expected dose.Dose distributions in Astroid agree well with measurements in water. The simulated database with zero energy spread is renormalized per gigaproton following the same procedure and could simplify commissioning at different facilities. In the future one needs only the energy spread, a list of available proton Ranges, and a calibrated ionization chamber measurement to commission treatment planning depth‐dose distributions at other facilities.

SU‐GG‐T‐457: Optimal Commissioning for PBS Treatment Planning Systems

Purpose: We show that one only requires measurement of the energy spread and pencil‐beam width to commission any particle beam scanning (PBS) planning system apart from the geometric representation and a table of the available equipment energies. We commissioned a treatment planning system (TPS) where dose distributions are calculated analytically or by a novel Monte Carlo, yamc. yamc resolves the limitation of analytical pencil‐beams: the insensitivity to lateral heterogeneities and at depth. Our approach uses absolute depth doses [Gy(RBE).mm2/Gigaproton], generated by GEANT4 Monte Carlo at zero energy spread, and measurements of the beam spot width and energy spread as a function of energy. This approach reduces the number of commissioning measurements. We present results from commissioning at our facility. Methods: The analytic dose calculation divides physical pencil beams into a grid of “computational” (zero‐width) pencil beams and transports those through the patient. Physical depth dose distributions are derived from GEANT4 pristine peaks by convolving with the measured energy spread and are subsequently verified against measurements. The yamc simulation is implemented on a graphics processing unit (GPU). Results: The performance of yamc is evaluated with a 10×10cm2 field and was computed in 10s with 3% statistical error on a 32‐core 0.9GHz GPU (∼200,000 protons/sec). Measured dose distributions satisfy the gamma (2mm,2%) criterion compared to the TPS for uniform and irregularly shaped fields. The measured longitudinal flatness of fields optimized for uniformity in the plateau varies between +/−1 to +/−3%. Conclusion: Dose distributions in the TPS have good agreement with measurements in water and are calculated either analytically or by yamc. The yamc improves dose accuracy near heterogeneities and the simulation time is more than adequate for treatment planning. Commissioning for other sites is reduced to the smallest possible set of machine‐dependent parameters: energy spread and spot width.