V Keeling

Dependency of planned dose perturbation (PDP) on the spatial resolution of MapCHECK 2 detectors.

The purpose of this study is to determine the dependency of the planned dose perturbation (PDP) algorithm (used in Sun Nuclear 3DVH software) on spatial resolution of the MapCHECK 2 detectors. In this study, ten brain (small target), ten brain (large target), ten prostate, and ten head‐and‐neck (H&N) cases were retrospectively selected for QA measurement. IMRT validation plans were delivered using the field‐by‐field technique with the MapCHECK 2 device. The measurements were performed using standard detector density (standard resolution; SR) and a doubled detector density (high resolution; HR) by merging regular with shifted measurements. SR and HR measurements were fed into the 3DVH software and ROI (region of interest), planning target volume (PTV), and organ at risk (OAR)) dose statistics (D95,Dmean. and Dmax) were determined for each. Differences of the dose statistics normalized to prescription dose for ROIs between original planning and PDP‐perturbed planning were calculated for SR(ΔDSR) and HR(ΔDHR), and difference between ΔDSR and ΔDHR(ΔDSR−HR=ΔDSR−DLDHR) was also calculated. In addition, 2D and 3D γ passing rates (GPRs) were determined for both resolutions, and a correlation between GPRs and ΔDSR or ΔDHR for PTV dose metrics was determined. No considerably high mean differences between ΔDSR and ΔDHR were found for almost all ROIs and plans (<2%); however, |ΔDSR|,|ΔDHR|, and |ΔDSR−HR| for PTV were found to significantly increase as the PTV size decreased (e.g., PTV size<5cc). And statistically significant differences between SR and HR were observed for OARs proximal to targets in large brain target and H&N cases. As plan modulation represented by fractional MU/prescription dose (MU/cGy) became more complex, the 2D/3D GPRs tended to decrease; however, the modulation complexity did not make any noticeable distinctions in the DVH statistics of PTV between SR and HR, excluding the small brain cases whose PTVs were extremely small (PTV=11.0±10.1cc). Moderate to strong negative correlations (−1<r<−0.3) between GPRs and PTV dose metrics indicated that small clinical errors for PTV occur at the higher GPRs. In conclusion, doubling the detector density of the MapCHECK 2 device is recommended for small targets (i.e., PTV<5cc) and multiple targets with complex geometry with minimum setup error in the DVH‐based plan evaluation. PACS numbers: 87.55.dk, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Interplay effect of angular dependence and calibration field size of MapCHECK 2 on RapidArc quality assurance.

The purpose of this study is to investigate an effect of angular dependence and calibration field size of MapCHECK 2 on RapidArc QA for 6, 8, 10, and 15 MV The angular dependence was investigated by comparing MapCHECK 2 measurements in MapPHAN‐MC2 to the corresponding Eclipse calculations every 10° using 10 × 10 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2 fields. Fourteen patients were selected to make RapidArc plans using the four energies, and verification plans were delivered to two phantom setups: MapCHECK 2/MapPHAN phantom (MapPHAN QA) and MapCHECK 2 on an isocentric mounting fixture (IMF QA). Migration of MapCHECK 2 on IMF was simulated by splitting arcs every 10° and displacing an isocenter of each partial arc in the Eclipse system (IMFACTUAL QA). To investigate the effect of calibration field size, MapCHECK 2 was calibrated by two field sizes (10 × 10 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2) and applied to all QA measurements. The γ test was implemented using criteria of 1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm. A mean dose of all compared points for each plan was compared with respect to a mean effective field size of the RapidArc plan. The angular dependence was considerably high at gantry angles of 90° ± 10° and 270° ± 10° (for 10 × 10/3 × 3 cm2 at 90°, 30.6% ± 6.6%/33.4%± 5.8% (6 MV), 17.3% ± 5.3%/15.0% ± 6.8% (8 MV), 8.9% ± 2.9%/7.8% ± 3.2% (10 MV), and 2.2% ± 2.3%/‐1.3% ± 2.6% (15 MV)). For 6 MV, the angular dependence significantly deteriorated the γ passing rate for plans of large field size in MapPHAN QA (< 90% using 3%/3 mm); however, these plans passed the γ test in IMFACTUAL QA (> 95%). The different calibration field sizes did not make any significant dose difference for both MapPHAN QA and IMFACTUAL QA. For 8, 10, and 15 MV, the angular dependence does not make any clinically meaningful impact on MapPHAN QA. Both MapPHAN QA and IMFACTUAL QA presented clinically acceptable γ passing rates using 3%/3 mm. MapPHAN QA showed better passing rates than IMFACTUAL QA for the tighter criteria. The 10 × 10 cm2 calibration showed better agreement for plans of small effective field size (< 5 × 5 cm2) in MapPHAN QA. There was no statistical difference between IMF QA and IMFACTUAL QA. In conclusion, MapPHAN QA is not recommended for plans of large field size, especially for 6 MV, and MapCHECK 2 should be calibrated using a field size similar to a mean effective field size of a RapidArc plan for better agreement for IMF QA. PACS numbers: 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

A comprehensive comparison study of three different planar IMRT QA techniques using MapCHECK 2.

The purpose of this study is to determine comparability of three different planar IMRT QA techniques: patient gantry angle composite (PGAC), single gantry angle composite (SGAC), and field by field (FBF), using MapCHECK 2 device and the γ test as performance metrics; and to assess the dependency of these techniques on intensity modulation, couch attenuation, and detector position (angular dependency). Ten highly modulated head and neck (H&N) and ten moderately modulated prostate IMRT validation plans were delivered using different techniques and were intercompared using the Students t‐test. The IMRT QA measurements were evaluated by percentage of points passing the γ test for three different criteria: 1% (dose difference)/1 mm (distance to agreement (DTA)) (C1), 2%/2 mm (C2), and 3%/3 mm (C3). To investigate dependency of the IMRT validation on treatment couch, ionization chamber measurements, as well as the conventional MapCHECK 2 QAs, were performed with PGAC and PGAC‐WOC (without couch; using an extended tennis racket‐type insert with negligible attenuation assumed). To determine angular dependency of the MapCHECK 2, patient gantry field‐by‐field (PG‐FBF) technique was delivered and evaluated separately for each field. The differences of γ passing rates between SGAC and FBF were statistically insignificant, while these were statistically significant when compared to PGAC. SGAC and FBF techniques showed statistically insignificant differences between different levels of intensity modulation (H&N vs. Prostate) at C2 and C3 criteria, while PGAC could not for any criteria. The treatment couch has a significant impact on γ passing rates (PGAC vs. PGAC‐WOC), but an ionization chamber‐based IMRT validations showed clinically insignificant dose errors (< 2%) in all cases. This study showed that the MapCHECK 2 device has large angular dependency, especially at gantry angles of 90° and 270°, which dramatically affected the γ passing rates of PGAC. With proper consideration of couch attenuation and beam arrangement, the MapCHECK 2 will produce clinically comparable QA results using the three different planar IMRT QA techniques. PACS numbers: 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Normal Brain Sparing With Increasing Number of Beams and Isocenters in Volumetric-Modulated Arc Beam Radiosurgery of Multiple Brain Metastases.

Recent studies have reported about the application of volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy in the treatment of multiple brain metastases. One of the key concerns for these radiosurgical treatments lies in the integral dose within the normal brain tissue, as it has been shown to increase with increasing number of brain tumors treated. In this study, we investigate the potential to improve normal brain tissue sparing specific to volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy by increasing the number of isocenters and arc beams. Adopting a multi-institutional benchmark study protocol of planning multiple brain metastases via a radiosurgical apparatus, a flattening filter-free TrueBeam RapidArc delivery system (Varian Oncology, Palo Alto, California) was used for a volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy treatment planning study, where treatment plans for target combinations of N = 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 targets were developed with increasing numbers of isocenters and arc beams. The treatment plans for each target combination were compared dosimetrically among each other and against the reference Gamma Knife treatment plan from the original benchmark study. We observed that as the number of isocenters or arc beams increased, the normal brain isodose volumes such as 12- to 4-Gy on average decreased by up to 15% for all the studied cases. However, when the best volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy normal brain isodose volumes were compared against the corresponding reference Gamma Knife values, volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy remained 100% to 200% higher than those of Gamma Knife for all target combinations. The study results, particularly for the solitary (N = 1) metastases case, directly challenged the general notion of dose equivalence among current radiosurgical modalities. In conclusion, multiple isocenter and multiple arc beam delivery solutions are capable of decreasing normal brain irradiation exposure for volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy. However, there is further technological development in need for volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy before similar dosimetric treatment plans could be achievable when compared to Gamma Knife radiosurgery.

Quantitative evaluation of patient setup uncertainty of stereotactic radiotherapy with the frameless 6D ExacTrac system using statistical modeling

The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient setup accuracy and quantify individual and cumulative positioning uncertainties associated with different hardware and software components of the stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) with the frameless 6D ExacTrac system. A statistical model is used to evaluate positioning uncertainties of the different components of SRS/SRT treatment with the Brainlab 6D ExacTrac system using the positioning shifts of 35 patients having cranial lesions. All these patients are immobilized with rigid head‐and‐neck masks, simulated with Brainlab localizer and planned with iPlan treatment planning system. Stereoscopic X‐ray images (XC) are acquired and registered to corresponding digitally reconstructed radiographs using bony‐anatomy matching to calculate 6D translational and rotational shifts. When the shifts are within tolerance (0.7 mm and 1°), treatment is initiated. Otherwise corrections are applied and additional X‐rays (XV) are acquired to verify that patient position is within tolerance. The uncertainties from the mask, localizer, IR ‐frame, X‐ray imaging, MV, and kV isocentricity are quantified individually. Mask uncertainty (translational: lateral, longitudinal, vertical; rotational: pitch, roll, yaw) is the largest and varies with patients in the range (−2.07−3.71mm,−5.82−5.62mm,−5.84−3.61mm;−2.10−2.40∘,−2.23−2.60∘,and−2.7−3.00∘) obtained from mean of XC shifts for each patient. Setup uncertainty in IR positioning (0.88, 2.12, 1.40 mm, and 0.64°, 0.83°, 0.96°) is extracted from standard deviation of XC. Systematic uncertainties of the frame (0.18, 0.25, −1.27mm, −0.32∘, 0.18°, and 0.47°) and localizer (−0.03, −0.01, 0.03 mm, and −0.03∘, 0.00°, −0.01∘) are extracted from means of all XV setups and mean of all XC distributions, respectively. Uncertainties in isocentricity of the MV radiotherapy machine are (0.27, 0.24, 0.34 mm) and kV imager (0.15, −0.4, 0.21 mm). A statistical model is developed to evaluate the individual and cumulative systematic and random positioning uncertainties induced by the different hardware and software components of the 6D ExacTrac system. The uncertainties from the mask, localizer, IR frame, X‐ray imaging, couch, MV linac, and kV imager isocentricity are quantified using statistical modeling. PACS number(s): 87.56.B‐, 87.59.B‐The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient setup accuracy and quantify individual and cumulative positioning uncertainties associated with different hardware and software components of the stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) with the frameless 6D ExacTrac system. A statistical model is used to evaluate positioning uncertainties of the different components of SRS/SRT treatment with the Brainlab 6D ExacTrac system using the positioning shifts of 35 patients having cranial lesions. All these patients are immobilized with rigid head-and-neck masks, simulated with Brainlab localizer and planned with iPlan treatment planning system. Stereoscopic X-ray images (XC) are acquired and registered to corresponding digitally reconstructed radiographs using bony-anatomy matching to calculate 6D translational and rotational shifts. When the shifts are within tolerance (0.7 mm and 1°), treatment is initiated. Otherwise corrections are applied and additional X-rays (XV) are acquired to verify that patient position is within tolerance. The uncertainties from the mask, localizer, IR -frame, X-ray imaging, MV, and kV isocentricity are quantified individually. Mask uncertainty (translational: lateral, longitudinal, vertical; rotational: pitch, roll, yaw) is the largest and varies with patients in the range (-2.07-3.71mm,-5.82-5.62mm,-5.84-3.61mm;-2.10-2.40∘,-2.23-2.60∘,and-2.7-3.00∘) obtained from mean of XC shifts for each patient. Setup uncertainty in IR positioning (0.88, 2.12, 1.40 mm, and 0.64°, 0.83°, 0.96°) is extracted from standard deviation of XC. Systematic uncertainties of the frame (0.18, 0.25, -1.27mm, -0.32∘, 0.18°, and 0.47°) and localizer (-0.03, -0.01, 0.03 mm, and -0.03∘, 0.00°, -0.01∘) are extracted from means of all XV setups and mean of all XC distributions, respectively. Uncertainties in isocentricity of the MV radiotherapy machine are (0.27, 0.24, 0.34 mm) and kV imager (0.15, -0.4, 0.21 mm). A statistical model is developed to evaluate the individual and cumulative systematic and random positioning uncertainties induced by the different hardware and software components of the 6D ExacTrac system. The uncertainties from the mask, localizer, IR frame, X-ray imaging, couch, MV linac, and kV imager isocentricity are quantified using statistical modeling. PACS number(s): 87.56.B-, 87.59.B.

Dosimetric effects of positioning shifts using 6D‐frameless stereotactic Brainlab system in hypofractionated intracranial radiotherapy

Dosimetric consequences of positional shifts were studied using frameless Brainlab ExacTrac X-ray system for hypofractionated (3 or 5 fractions) intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). SRT treatments of 17 patients with metastatic intracranial tumors using the stereotactic system were retrospectively investigated. The treatments were simulated in a treatment planning system by modifying planning parameters with a matrix conversion technique based on positional shifts for initial infrared (IR)-based setup (XC: X-ray correction) and post-correction (XV: X-ray verification). The simulation was implemented with (a) 3D translational shifts only and (b) 6D translational and rotational shifts for dosimetric effects of angular correction. Mean translations and rotations (± 1 SD) of 77 fractions based on the initial IR setup (XC) were 0.51±0.86 mm (lateral), 0.30±1.55 mm (longitudinal), and -1.63±1.00 mm (vertical); 0.53±0.56 mm (pitch), 0.42±0.60 mm (roll), and 0.44±0.90 mm (yaw), respectively. These were -0.07±0.24 mm, -0.07±0.25 mm, 0.06±0.21 mm, 0.04±0.23 mm, 0.00±0.30 mm, and 0.02±0.22 mm, respectively, for the postcorrection (XV). Substantial degradation of the treatment plans was observed in D95 of PTV (2.6%±3.3%; simulated treatment versus treatment planning), Dmin of PTV (13.4%±11.6%), and Dmin of CTV (2.8%±3.8%, with the maximum error of 10.0%) from XC, while dosimetrically negligible changes (< 0.1%) were detected for both CTV and PTV from XV simulation. 3D angular correction significantly improved CTV dose coverage when the total angular shifts (|pitch|+|roll|+|yaw|) were greater than 2°. With the 6D stereoscopic X-ray verification imaging and frameless immobilization, submillimeter and subdegree accuracy is achieved with negligible dosimetric deviations. 3D angular correction is required when the angular deviation is substantial. A CTV-to-PTV safety margin of 2 mm is large enough to prevent deterioration of CTV coverage. PACS number: 87.55.dk.Dosimetric consequences of positional shifts were studied using frameless Brainlab ExacTrac X‐ray system for hypofractionated (3 or 5 fractions) intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). SRT treatments of 17 patients with metastatic intracranial tumors using the stereotactic system were retrospectively investigated. The treatments were simulated in a treatment planning system by modifying planning parameters with a matrix conversion technique based on positional shifts for initial infrared (IR)‐based setup (XC: X‐ray correction) and post‐correction (XV: X‐ray verification). The simulation was implemented with (a) 3D translational shifts only and (b) 6D translational and rotational shifts for dosimetric effects of angular correction. Mean translations and rotations (± 1 SD) of 77 fractions based on the initial IR setup (XC) were 0.51±0.86 mm (lateral), 0.30±1.55 mm (longitudinal), and −1.63±1.00 mm (vertical); 0.53±0.56 mm (pitch), 0.42±0.60 mm (roll), and 0.44±0.90 mm (yaw), respectively. These were −0.07±0.24 mm, −0.07±0.25 mm, 0.06±0.21 mm, 0.04±0.23 mm, 0.00±0.30 mm, and 0.02±0.22 mm, respectively, for the postcorrection (XV). Substantial degradation of the treatment plans was observed in D95 of PTV (2.6%±3.3%; simulated treatment versus treatment planning), Dmin of PTV (13.4%±11.6%), and Dmin of CTV (2.8%±3.8%, with the maximum error of 10.0%) from XC, while dosimetrically negligible changes (< 0.1%) were detected for both CTV and PTV from XV simulation. 3D angular correction significantly improved CTV dose coverage when the total angular shifts (|pitch|+|roll|+|yaw|) were greater than 2°. With the 6D stereoscopic X‐ray verification imaging and frameless immobilization, submillimeter and subdegree accuracy is achieved with negligible dosimetric deviations. 3D angular correction is required when the angular deviation is substantial. A CTV‐to‐PTV safety margin of 2 mm is large enough to prevent deterioration of CTV coverage. PACS number: 87.55.dk

SU-E-T-700: Single Isocenter Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) for Intact Left Breast Cancer Patients with Internal Mammary (IM) and Supraclavicular (S/C) Nodes - a Treatment Planning Study

Purpose: To investigate treatment plan quality and feasibility of VMAT for treatment delivery of intact left breast cancer patients with involved internal mammary (IM) and supraclavicular (S/C) nodes. Methods: Ten patients were selected for this retrospective study. All PTVs (Intact left breast, IM & S/C nodes) were contoured by a single radiation oncologist. Four 200° partial arcs with 2cm overlapping jaws (two clockwise and two counterclockwise; gantry angle 300°–140°) and ten fixed-field equally spaced coplanar modulated fields were used to optimize single isocenter VMAT (RapidArc) and IMRT treatment plans, respectively, using Eclipse TPS. Prescribed dose to PTV was 46Gy in 23 fractions with prescription dose covering 95% of the PTV. Results: Four of the 10 patients had PTV > 1200cc. The mean PTV volume was 1200.17±571.51cc (findings are reported as mean ± 1 SD). All plans were judged clinically acceptable while satisfying dose-volume constraints, with VMAT showing significantly better conformity than IMRT. The mean Paddick conformity index (PCI) was 0.88±0.03 for VMAT vs. 0.82±0.06 for IMRT plans (p=0.001). However, maximum doses were within ±1.0% of 111% of the prescription dose for both plans. The heart mean dose was 5.00±0.99Gy for VMAT vs. 7.09±1.70Gy for IMRT (p 30Gy was 0.18±0.29% for VMAT vs. 0.68±1.24% for IMRT (p=0.19), and V5Gy and V7Gy were 31.67±11.56% and 14.93±7.41% for VMAT vs. 67.15±17.66% and 36.55±16.59% for IMRT plans, respectively (p<0.001). The mean total lung dose was 8.95±0.52Gy vs. 8.48±0.81Gy (p=0.06) and V20Gy was 10.65±2.00% vs. 8.12±1.37% (p=0.055) for VMAT and IMRT plans, respectively. The right breast mean dose was 2.83±0.46Gy for VMAT vs. 4.06±0.61Gy for IMRT plans (p<0.001). Conclusion: VMAT plans achieved intended dose coverage to the intact left breast, IM & S/C nodes at ≥ 95% with significantly lower dose to critical structures, especially, to heart and contralateral breast compared to IMRT plans.

Comparability of three output prediction models for a compact passively double-scattered proton therapy system

&NA; The purpose of this study was to investigate comparability of three output prediction models for a compact double‐scattered proton therapy system. Two published output prediction models are commissioned for our Mevion S250 proton therapy system. Model A is a correction‐based model (Sahoo et al., Med Phys, 2008;35(11):5088–5097) and model B is an analytical model which employs a function of r = (R’‐M’)/M’ (Kooy et al., Phys Med Biol, 2005;50:5487–5456) where R’ is defined as depth of distal 100% dose with straggling and M’ is the width between distal 100% dose and proximal 100% dose with straggling instead of the theoretical definition due to more accurate output prediction. The r is converted to ((R‐0.31)‐0.81 × M)/(0.81 × M) with the vendor definition of R (distal 90% dose) and M (distal 90% dose‐to‐proximal 95% dose), where R’ = R‐0.31 (g cm−2) and M’ = 0.81 × M (g cm−2). In addition, a quartic polynomial fit model (model C) mathematically converted from model B is studied. The outputs of 272 sets of R and M covering the 24 double scattering options are measured. Each models predicted output is compared to the measured output. For the total dataset, the percent difference between predicted (P) and measured (M) outputs ((P‐M)/M × 100%) were within ±3% using the three different models. The average differences (±standard deviation) were −0.13 ± 0.94%, −0.13 ± 1.20%, and −0.22 ± 1.11% for models A, B, and C, respectively. The p‐values of the t‐test were 0.912 (model A vs. B), 0.061 (model A vs. C), and 0.136 (model B vs. C). For all the options, all three models have clinically acceptable predictions. The differences between models A, B, and C are statistically insignificant; however, model A generally has the potential to more accurately predict the output if a larger dataset for commissioning is used. It is concluded that the models can be comparably used for the compact proton therapy system.

SU-F-T-160: Commissioning of a Single-Room Double-Scattering Proton Therapy System

PURPOSE To report the detailed commissioning experience for a compact double-scattering Mevion S250 proton therapy system at a University Cancer Center site. METHODS The commissioning of the proton therapy system mainly consisted of ensuring integrity of mechanical and imaging system, beam data collection, and commissioning of a treatment planning system (TPS). First, mechanical alignment and imaging were tested including safety, interlocks, positional accuracy of couch and gantry, image quality, mechanical and imaging isocenter and so on. Second, extensive beam data (outputs, PDDs, and profiles) were collected and analyzed through effective sampling of range (R) and modulation width (M) from 24 beam options. Three different output (cGy/MU) prediction models were also commissioned as primary and secondary MU calculation tool. Third, the Varian Eclipse TPS was commissioned through five sets of data collections (in-water Bragg peak scans, in-air longitudinal fluence scans, in-air lateral profiles, in-air half-beam profiles, and an HU-to-stopping-power conversion curve) and accuracy of TPS calculation was tested using in-water scans and dose measurements with a 2D array detector with block and range compensator. Finally, an anthropomorphic phantom was scanned and heterogeneity effects were tested by inserting radiochromic films in the phantom and PET activation scans for range verification in conjunction with end-to-end test. RESULTS Beam characteristics agreed well with the vendor specifications; however, minor mismatches in R and M were found in some measurements during the beam data collection. These were reflected into the TPS commissioning such that the TPS could accurately predict the R and M within tolerance levels. The output models had a good agreement with measured outputs (<3% error). The end-to-end test using the film and PET showed reasonably the TPS predicted dose, R and M in heterogeneous medium. CONCLUSION The proton therapy system was successfully commissioned and was released for clinical use.

SU‐F‐T‐143: Implementation of a Correction‐Based Output Model for a Compact Passively Scattered Proton Therapy System

PURPOSE To commission and investigate the accuracy of an output (cGy/MU) prediction model for a compact passively scattered proton therapy system. METHODS A previously published output prediction model (Sahoo et al, Med Phys, 35, 5088-5097, 2008) was commissioned for our Mevion S250 proton therapy system. This model is a correction-based model that multiplies correction factors (d/MUwnc=ROFxSOBPF xRSFxSOBPOCFxOCRxFSFxISF). These factors accounted for changes in output due to options (12 large, 5 deep, and 7 small), modulation width M, range R, off-center, off-axis, field-size, and off-isocenter. In this study, the model was modified to ROFxSOBPFxRSFxOCRxFSFxISF_OCFxGACF by merging SOBPOCF and ISF for simplicity and introducing a gantry angle correction factor (GACF). To commission the model, outputs over 1,000 data points were taken at the time of the system commissioning. The output was predicted by interpolation (1D for SOBPF, FSF, and GACF; 2D for RSF and OCR) with inverse-square calculation (ISF_OCR). The outputs of 273 combinations of R and M covering total 24 options were measured to test the model. To minimize fluence perturbation, scattered dose from range compensator and patient was not considered. The percent differences between the predicted (P) and measured (M) outputs were calculated to test the prediction accuracy ([P-M]/Mx100%). RESULTS GACF was required because of up to 3.5% output variation dependence on the gantry angle. A 2D interpolation was required for OCR because the dose distribution was not radially symmetric especially for the deep options. The average percent differences were -0.03±0.98% (mean±SD) and the differences of all the measurements fell within ±3%. CONCLUSION It is concluded that the model can be clinically used for the compact passively scattered proton therapy system. However, great care should be taken when the field-size is less than 5×5 cm2 where a direct output measurement is required due to substantial output change by irregular block shape.