1
|
Wolter LC, Hennings F, Bokor J, Richter C, Stützer K. Validity of one-time phantomless patient-specific quality assurance in proton therapy with regard to the reproducibility of beam delivery. Med Phys 2025. [PMID: 39871091 DOI: 10.1002/mp.17637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2024] [Revised: 12/14/2024] [Accepted: 01/06/2025] [Indexed: 01/29/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) is a crucial yet resource-intensive task in proton therapy, requiring special equipment, expertise and additional beam time. Machine delivery log files contain information about energy, position and monitor units (MU) of all delivered spots, allowing a reconstruction of the applied dose. This raises the prospect of phantomless, log file-based QA (LFQA) as an automated replacement of current phantom-based solutions, provided that such an approach guarantees a comparable level of safety. PURPOSE To retrieve a reliable LFQA conclusion from a one-time plan delivery before treatment initiation, deviations between planned and logged parameters must either be persistent over all following treatment fractions or, in case of random fluctuations, must not have a relevant impact on the reconstructed dose distribution. We therefore investigated the reproducibility of log file parameters over multiple patient treatment fractions and compared the reconstructed dose distributions. METHODS Log file variability was examined at both spot parameter and integral dose levels. The log files of 14 patient treatment plans were analyzed retrospectively for a total of 339 delivered fractions. From the recorded x/y position and MU parameters per spot, the respective mean difference to the planned value (accuracy) and the standard deviation (reproducibility) were calculated for 108,610 planned spots. The dose distributions reconstructed from the log files of each fraction were evaluated against the planned fraction dose using 3D gamma index analysis. The dose-based gamma pass rate Γ $\Gamma$ was correlated with a new spot-based log file pass rate Λ ${\Lambda}$ . Beam timing information from the log files was used to quantify the total plan/field delivery time stability after excluding machine interlocks. RESULTS The mean spot-wise accuracy with respect to distance from planned positions and MUs was (0.6 ± 0.3) mm and (0.0001 ± 0.0023) MU, respectively. The mean reproducibility of the observed single spot deviations was (0.2 ± 0.1) mm and (0.0004 ± 0.0004) MU (mean ± standard deviation). These variations resulted in minimal changes in the reconstructed fraction dose with Γ ${{\Gamma}}$ (2 mm/2%) > 99% for all studied fractions. Results for more sensitive criteria Γ ${{\Gamma}}$ (1 mm/1%) were plan-specific, but on average > 92.6% per plan and correlated with Λ ${{\Lambda}}$ (1 mm) pass rates (0.51 ≤ rPearson ≤ 0.99). Field delivery times were reproducible within ± 4 s (2σ) and no treatment interruptions were observed in 92.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS The log file records of plan-relevant spot parameters are well-reproducible over multiple fractions and deviations have no dosimetrically relevant impact on the reconstructed fraction doses. Results of a one-time pre-treatment LFQA are considered as valid for the entire treatment course and there is no concern in this regard to replace state-of-the-art phantom measurements in the current PSQA workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukas Cornelius Wolter
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiation Oncology, Dresden, Germany
| | - Fabian Hennings
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiation Oncology, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jozef Bokor
- Ion Beam Applications Particle Therapy GmbH, c/o Universitätsklinikum Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christian Richter
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiation Oncology, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kristin Stützer
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiation Oncology, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bennett LC, Hyer DE, Vu J, Patwardhan K, Erhart K, Gutierrez AN, Pons E, Jensen E, Ubau M, Zapata J, Wroe A, Wake K, Nelson NP, Culberson WS, Smith BR, Hill PM, Flynn RT. Patient-specific quality assurance of dynamically-collimated proton therapy treatment plans. Med Phys 2024; 51:5901-5910. [PMID: 38977285 PMCID: PMC11781041 DOI: 10.1002/mp.17295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2024] [Revised: 05/16/2024] [Accepted: 06/10/2024] [Indexed: 07/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The dynamic collimation system (DCS) provides energy layer-specific collimation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using two pairs of orthogonal nickel trimmer blades. While excellent measurement-to-calculation agreement has been demonstrated for simple cube-shaped DCS-trimmed dose distributions, no comparison of measurement and dose calculation has been made for patient-specific treatment plans. PURPOSE To validate a patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) process for DCS-trimmed PBS treatment plans and evaluate the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions. METHODS Three intracranial patient cases were considered. Standard uncollimated PBS and DCS-collimated treatment plans were generated for each patient using the Astroid treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were recalculated in a water phantom and delivered at the Miami Cancer Institute (MCI) using an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) dedicated nozzle system and prototype DCS. Planar dose measurements were acquired at two depths within low-gradient regions of the target volume using an IBA MatriXX ion chamber array. RESULTS Measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using 2D gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criteria and low dose threshold of 10% of the maximum dose. Median gamma pass rates across all plans and measurement depths were 99.0% (PBS) and 98.3% (DCS), with a minimum gamma pass rate of 88.5% (PBS) and 91.2% (DCS). CONCLUSIONS The PSQA process has been validated and experimentally verified for DCS-collimated PBS. Dosimetric agreement between the measured and calculated doses was demonstrated to be similar for DCS-collimated PBS to that achievable with noncollimated PBS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura C Bennett
- Roy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, 5601 Seamans Center for the Engineering Arts and Sciences, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| | - Daniel E Hyer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| | - Justin Vu
- Roy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, 5601 Seamans Center for the Engineering Arts and Sciences, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| | - Kaustubh Patwardhan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| | | | - Alonso N Gutierrez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Eduardo Pons
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Eric Jensen
- Ion Beam Applications S.A., R&D Proton Therapy, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Manual Ubau
- Ion Beam Applications S.A., R&D Proton Therapy, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Julio Zapata
- Ion Beam Applications S.A., R&D Proton Therapy, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Andrew Wroe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Karsten Wake
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Nicholas P Nelson
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Wesley S Culberson
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Blake R Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| | - Patrick M Hill
- Department of Human Oncology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Ryan T Flynn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kraan AC, Susini F, Moglioni M, Battistoni G, Bersani D, Carra P, Cerello P, De Gregorio A, Ferrero V, Fiorina E, Franciosini G, Morrocchi M, Muraro S, Patera V, Pennazio F, Retico A, Rosso V, Sarti A, Schiavi A, Sportelli G, Traini G, Vischioni B, Vitolo V, Bisogni MG. In-beam PET treatment monitoring of carbon therapy patients: Results of a clinical trial at CNAO. Phys Med 2024; 125:104493. [PMID: 39137617 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.104493] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2024] [Revised: 06/26/2024] [Accepted: 07/25/2024] [Indexed: 08/15/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Carbon ion therapy treatments can be monitored non-invasively with in-beam Positron Emission Tomography (PET). At CNAO the INSIDE in-beam PET scanner has been used in a clinical trial (NCT03662373) to monitor cancer treatments with proton and carbon therapy. In this work we present the analysis results of carbon therapy data, acquired during the first phase of the clinical trial, analyzing data of nine patients treated at CNAO for various malignant tumors in the head-and-neck region. MATERIALS AND METHODS The patient group contained two patients requiring replanning, and seven patients without replanning, based on established protocols. For each patient the PET images acquired along the course of treatment were compared with a reference, applying two analysis methods: the beam-eye-view (BEV) method and the γ-index analysis. Time trends in several parameters were investigated, as well as the agreement with control CTs, if available. RESULTS Regarding the BEV-method, the average sigma value σ was 3.7 mm of range difference distributions for patients without changes (sensitivity of the INSIDE detector). The 3D-information obtained from the BEV analysis was partly in agreement with what was observed in the control CT. The data quality and quantity was insufficient for a definite interpretation of the time trends. CONCLUSION We analyzed carbon therapy data acquired with the INSIDE in-beam PET detector using two analysis methods. The data allowed to evaluate sensitivity of the INSIDE detector for carbon therapy and to make several recommendations for the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aafke Christine Kraan
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy.
| | - Filippo Susini
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Martina Moglioni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Battistoni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Via Giovanni Celoria 16, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Davide Bersani
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Pietro Carra
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Piergiorgio Cerello
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy
| | - Angelica De Gregorio
- Sapienza università di Roma, Dipartimento di Fisica, Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy
| | - Veronica Ferrero
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy
| | - Elisa Fiorina
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy
| | - Gaia Franciosini
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy; Sapienza università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l'Ingegneria, Via A. Scarpa 14, 00161 Roma, Italy
| | - Matteo Morrocchi
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Silvia Muraro
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Via Giovanni Celoria 16, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Patera
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy; Sapienza università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l'Ingegneria, Via A. Scarpa 14, 00161 Roma, Italy
| | - Francesco Pennazio
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy
| | - Alessandra Retico
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Valeria Rosso
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Alessio Sarti
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy; Sapienza università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l'Ingegneria, Via A. Scarpa 14, 00161 Roma, Italy
| | - Angelo Schiavi
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy; Sapienza università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l'Ingegneria, Via A. Scarpa 14, 00161 Roma, Italy
| | - Giancarlo Sportelli
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Giacomo Traini
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy
| | - Barbara Vischioni
- CNAO National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Via Erminio Borloni 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
| | - Viviana Vitolo
- CNAO National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy, Via Erminio Borloni 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
| | - Maria Giuseppina Bisogni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy; Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kraan AC, Moglioni M, Battistoni G, Bersani D, Berti A, Carra P, Cerello P, Ciocca M, Ferrero V, Fiorina E, Mazzoni E, Morrocchi M, Muraro S, Orlandi E, Pennazio F, Retico A, Rosso V, Sportelli G, Vischioni B, Vitolo V, Bisogni MG. Using the gamma-index analysis for inter-fractional comparison of in-beam PET images for head-and-neck treatment monitoring in proton therapy: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Phys Med 2024; 120:103329. [PMID: 38492331 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2023] [Revised: 02/13/2024] [Accepted: 03/07/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024] Open
Abstract
GOAL In-beam Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is a technique for in-vivo non-invasive treatment monitoring for proton therapy. To detect anatomical changes in patients with PET, various analysis methods exist, but their clinical interpretation is problematic. The goal of this work is to investigate whether the gamma-index analysis, widely used for dose comparisons, is an appropriate tool for comparing in-beam PET distributions. Focusing on a head-and-neck patient, we investigate whether the gamma-index map and the passing rate are sensitive to progressive anatomical changes. METHODS/MATERIALS We simulated a treatment course of a proton therapy patient using FLUKA Monte Carlo simulations. Gradual emptying of the sinonasal cavity was modeled through a series of artificially modified CT scans. The in-beam PET activity distributions from three fields were evaluated, simulating a planar dual head geometry. We applied the 3D-gamma evaluation method to compare the PET images with a reference image without changes. Various tolerance criteria and parameters were tested, and results were compared to the CT-scans. RESULTS Based on 210 MC simulations we identified appropriate parameters for the gamma-index analysis. Tolerance values of 3 mm/3% and 2 mm/2% were suited for comparison of simulated in-beam PET distributions. The gamma passing rate decreased with increasing volume change for all fields. CONCLUSION The gamma-index analysis was found to be a useful tool for comparing simulated in-beam PET images, sensitive to sinonasal cavity emptying. Monitoring the gamma passing rate behavior over the treatment course is useful to detect anatomical changes occurring during the treatment course.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aafke Christine Kraan
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Martina Moglioni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy.
| | - Giuseppe Battistoni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Via Giovanni Celoria 16, Milano, 20133, Italy
| | - Davide Bersani
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, Torino, 10125, Italy
| | - Andrea Berti
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Pietro Carra
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Piergiorgio Cerello
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, Torino, 10125, Italy
| | - Mario Ciocca
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Strada Privata Campeggi 53, Pavia, 27100, Italy
| | - Veronica Ferrero
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, Torino, 10125, Italy
| | - Elisa Fiorina
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, Torino, 10125, Italy
| | - Enrico Mazzoni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Matteo Morrocchi
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Silvia Muraro
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Via Giovanni Celoria 16, Milano, 20133, Italy
| | - Ester Orlandi
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Strada Privata Campeggi 53, Pavia, 27100, Italy
| | - Francesco Pennazio
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 1, Torino, 10125, Italy
| | - Alessandra Retico
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Valeria Rosso
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Giancarlo Sportelli
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| | - Barbara Vischioni
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Strada Privata Campeggi 53, Pavia, 27100, Italy
| | - Viviana Vitolo
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Strada Privata Campeggi 53, Pavia, 27100, Italy
| | - Maria Giuseppina Bisogni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 3, Pisa, 56127, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Guerrero M, Yao W, Lin M, Becker S, Molitoris J, Vedam S, Yi B. Validation of a commercial software dose calculation for Y-90 microspheres. Brachytherapy 2022; 21:561-566. [DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2022.03.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2021] [Revised: 03/24/2022] [Accepted: 03/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
6
|
Ricci JC, Hsi WC, Su Z, Mund K, Dawson R, Indelicato DJ. The root cause analysis on failed patient-specific measurements of pencil beam scanning protons using a 2D detection array with finite size ionization chambers. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:175-190. [PMID: 34312997 PMCID: PMC8364270 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Revised: 04/21/2021] [Accepted: 06/03/2021] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
The aim of this report is to present the root cause analysis on failed patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) measurements of pencil beam scanning (PBS) protons; referred to as PBS‐QA measurement. A criterion to fail a PBS‐QA measurement is having a <95% passing rate in a 3.0%‐3.0 mm gamma index analysis. Clinically, we use a two‐dimensional (2D) gamma index analysis to obtain the passing rate. The IBA MatriXX PT 2D detection array with finite size ionization chamber was utilized. A total of 2488 measurements performed in our PBS beamline were cataloged. The percentage of measurements for the sites of head/neck, breast, prostate, and other are 53.3%, 22.7%, 10.5%, and 13.5%, respectively. The measurements with a passing rate of 100 to >94%, 94 to >88%, and <88% were 93.6%, 5.6%, and 0.8%, respectively. The percentage of failed measurements with a <95% passing rate was 10.9%. After removed the user errors of either re‐measurement or re‐analysis, 8.1% became acceptable. We observed a feature of >3% per mm dose gradient with respect to depth on the failed measurements. We utilized a 2D/three‐dimensional (3D) gamma index analysis toolkit to investigate the effect of depth dose gradient. By utilizing this 3D toolkit, 43.1% of the failed measurements were improved. A feature among measurements that remained sub‐optimal after re‐analysis was a sharp >3% per mm lateral dose gradient that may not be well handled using the detector size of 5.0 mm in‐diameter. An analysis of the sampling of finite size detectors using one‐dimensional (1D) error function showed a large dose deviation at locations of low‐dose areas between two high‐dose plateaus. User error, large depth dose gradient, and the effect of detector size are identified as root causes. With the mitigation of the root causes, the goals of patient‐specific QA, specifically detecting actual deviation of beam delivery or identifying limitations of the dose calculation algorithm of the treatment planning system, can be directly related to failure of the PBS‐QA measurements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob C Ricci
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Wen C Hsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Zhong Su
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Karl Mund
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Robert Dawson
- Department of Medical Physics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Ackerman Cancer Center, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Meijers A, Guterres Marmitt G, Ng Wei Siang K, van der Schaaf A, Knopf AC, Langendijk JA, Both S. Feasibility of patient specific quality assurance for proton therapy based on independent dose calculation and predicted outcomes. Radiother Oncol 2020; 150:136-141. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.06.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2020] [Revised: 05/21/2020] [Accepted: 06/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
8
|
Rahman M, Brůža P, Langen KM, Gladstone DJ, Cao X, Pogue BW, Zhang R. Characterization of a new scintillation imaging system for proton pencil beam dose rate measurements. Phys Med Biol 2020; 65:165014. [PMID: 32428888 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab9452] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
The goal of this work was to create a technique that could measure all possible spatial and temporal delivery rates used in pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. The proposed system used a fast scintillation screen for full-field imaging to resolve temporal and spatial patterns as it was delivered. A fast intensified CMOS camera used continuous mode with 10 ms temporal frame rate and 1 × 1 mm2 spatial resolution, imaging a scintillation screen during clinical proton PBS delivery. PBS plans with varying dose, dose rate, energy, field size, and spot-spacing were generated, delivered and imaged. The captured images were post processed to provide dose and dose rate values after background subtraction, perspective transformation, uniformity correction for the camera and the scintillation screen, and calibration into dose. The linearity in scintillation response with respect to varying dose rate, dose, and field size was within 2%. The quenching corrected response with varying energy was also within 2%. Large spatio-temporal variations in dose rate were observed, even for plans delivered with similar dose distributions. Dose and dose rate histograms and maximum dose rate maps were generated for quantitative evaluations. With the fastest PBS delivery on a clinical system, dose rates up to 26.0 Gy s-1 were resolved. The scintillation imaging technique was able to quantify proton PBS dose rate profiles with spot weight as low as 2 MU, with spot-spacing of 2.5 mm, having a 1 × 1 mm2 spatial resolution. These dose rate temporal profiles, spatial maps, and cumulative dose rate histograms provide useful metrics for the potential evaluation and optimization of dose rate in treatment plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahbubur Rahman
- Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Teichmann T, Salz H, Schwedas M, Schilz J, Wolf U, Walke M, Kornhuber C, Berger R, Schröder D, Hourle M, Peil T, Tümmler H, Wiezorek T, Wittig A. A multi-institutional initiative on patient-related quality assurance: Independent computational dose verification of fluence-modulated treatment techniques. Z Med Phys 2020; 30:155-165. [PMID: 31980303 DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2019.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2019] [Revised: 11/26/2019] [Accepted: 12/13/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This multi-institutional study investigates whether computational verification of fluence-modulated treatment plans using independent software with its own Strahlerkopfmodel is an appropriate method for patient-related quality assurance (PRQA) in the context of various combinations of linear accelerators (linacs), treatment techniques and treatment planning systems (TPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS The PRQA-software's (Mobius3D) recalculations of 9 institutions' treatment plans were analyzed for a horseshoe-shaped planning target volume (PTV) inside a phantom. The recomputed dose distributions were compared to a) the dose distributions as calculated by all TPS's and b) the measured dose distributions, which were acquired using the same independent measuring system for all institutions. Furthermore, dose volume histograms were examined. The penumbra deviations and mean gamma values were quantified using Verisoft (PTW). Additionally, workflow requirements for computational verification were discussed. RESULTS Mobius3D is compatible with all examined TPSs, treatment techniques and linacs. The mean PTV dose differences (Mobius3D-TPS, <3.0%) and 3D gamma passing rates (>95.0%) led to a positive plan acceptance result in all cases. These results are similar to the outcome of the dosimetric measurements with one exception. The mean gamma values (<0.5) show a good agreement between Mobius3D and the TPS dose distributions. CONCLUSION Using Mobius3D was proven to be an appropriate computational PRQA method for the tested combinations of linacs, treatment techniques and TPS's. The clinical use of Mobius3D has to be complemented with regular dosimetric measurements and thorough linac and TPS QA. Mobius3D's computational verification reduced measurement effort and personnel needs in comparison to dosimetric verifications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tobias Teichmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany.
| | - Henning Salz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany; Department of Radiosurgery and High Precision Robotic Treatments, Cyberknife Center Mitteldeutschland, Nordhäuserstraße 74, 99089 Erfurt, Germany
| | - Michael Schwedas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany
| | - Johannes Schilz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Helios Hospital Erfurt, Nordhäuser Straße 74, 99089, Erfurt, Germany
| | - Ulrich Wolf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leipzig, Stephanstraße 9a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Mathias Walke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - Christine Kornhuber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Halle, Ernst-Grube-Straße 40, 06120 Halle, Saale, Germany
| | - Rene Berger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, SRH Hospital Gera, Straße des Friedens 122, 07548, Gera, Germany
| | - Dirk Schröder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, SRH Central Hospital Suhl, Albert-Schweitzer-Straße 2, 98527, Suhl, Germany
| | - Marcus Hourle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of Chemnitz, Bürgerstraße 2, 09113, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Torsten Peil
- MVZ Center for Radiation Oncology Halle GmbH, Niemeyerstraße 24, 06110 Halle, Saale, Germany
| | - Heiko Tümmler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Community Hospital Dresden-Friedrichstadt, Friedrichstraße 41, 01067, Dresden, Germany
| | - Tilo Wiezorek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany
| | - Andrea Wittig
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hernandez Morales D, Shan J, Liu W, Augustine KE, Bues M, Davis MJ, Fatyga M, Johnson JE, Mundy DW, Shen J, Younkin JE, Stoker JB. Automation of routine elements for spot-scanning proton patient-specific quality assurance. Med Phys 2018; 46:5-14. [PMID: 30339270 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13246] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2018] [Revised: 09/12/2018] [Accepted: 10/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE At 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. METHODS We 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. RESULTS Device 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. CONCLUSIONS The 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jie Shan
- Biomedical Informatics Department, Arizona State University, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Kurt E Augustine
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Michael J Davis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Mirek Fatyga
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Jedediah E Johnson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Daniel W Mundy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - James E Younkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Joshua B Stoker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wang P, Tang S, Taylor PA, Cummings DE, Janson M, Traneus E, Sturgeon JD, Lee AK, Chang C. Clinical examination of proton pencil beam scanning on a moving anthropomorphic lung phantom. Med Dosim 2018; 44:122-129. [PMID: 29759487 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2018.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2017] [Revised: 02/26/2018] [Accepted: 04/05/2018] [Indexed: 10/16/2022]
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the use of proton pencil beam scanning for the treatment of moving lung tumors. A single-field uniform dose proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) plan was generated for the standard thorax phantom designed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston QA Center. Robust optimization, including range and setup uncertainties as well as volumetric repainting, was used for the plan. Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) measurements were performed using both a water tank and a custom heterogeneous QA phantom. A custom moving phantom was used to find the optimal number of volumetric repainting. Both analytical and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms were used for dose calculation and their accuracies were compared with actual measurements. A single ionization chamber, a 2-dimensional ionization chamber array, thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), and films were used for dose measurements. The optimal number of volumetric repainting was found to be 4 times in our system. The mean dose overestimations on a moving target by analytical and MC algorithms based on a time-averaged computed tomography (CT) image of the phantom were found to be 4.8% and 2.4%, respectively. The mean gamma indexes for analytical and MC algorithms were 91% and 96%, respectively. The MC dose algorithm calculation was found to have a better agreement with measurements compared with the analytical algorithm. When treating moving lung tumors using proton PBS, the techniques of robust optimization, volumetric repainting, and MC dose calculation were found effective. Extra care needs to be taken when an analytical dose calculation algorithm is used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peng Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
| | | | - Paige A Taylor
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Yao W, Moskvin V, Zhao L, Lukose R, Hua CH, Tsiamas P, Axente M, Merchant TE, Farr JB. Implementation of a simplified analytical random walk model dose calculation algorithm with nuclear interaction for treatment planning of scanning-beam proton therapy. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2018. [DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/aab7d5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
13
|
Fiorini F, Schreuder N, Van den Heuvel F. Technical Note: Defining cyclotron-based clinical scanning proton machines in a FLUKA Monte Carlo system. Med Phys 2018; 45:963-970. [PMID: 29178429 PMCID: PMC6571526 DOI: 10.1002/mp.12701] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2017] [Revised: 11/09/2017] [Accepted: 11/20/2017] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Cyclotron-based pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton machines represent nowadays the majority and most affordable choice for proton therapy facilities, however, their representation in Monte Carlo (MC) codes is more complex than passively scattered proton system- or synchrotron-based PBS machines. This is because degraders are used to decrease the energy from the cyclotron maximum energy to the desired energy, resulting in a unique spot size, divergence, and energy spread depending on the amount of degradation. This manuscript outlines a generalized methodology to characterize a cyclotron-based PBS machine in a general-purpose MC code. The code can then be used to generate clinically relevant plans starting from commercial TPS plans. METHODS The described beam is produced at the Provision Proton Therapy Center (Knoxville, TN, USA) using a cyclotron-based IBA Proteus Plus equipment. We characterized the Provision beam in the MC FLUKA using the experimental commissioning data. The code was then validated using experimental data in water phantoms for single pencil beams and larger irregular fields. Comparisons with RayStation TPS plans are also presented. RESULTS Comparisons of experimental, simulated, and planned dose depositions in water plans show that same doses are calculated by both programs inside the target areas, while penumbrae differences are found at the field edges. These differences are lower for the MC, with a γ(3%-3 mm) index never below 95%. CONCLUSIONS Extensive explanations on how MC codes can be adapted to simulate cyclotron-based scanning proton machines are given with the aim of using the MC as a TPS verification tool to check and improve clinical plans. For all the tested cases, we showed that dose differences with experimental data are lower for the MC than TPS, implying that the created FLUKA beam model is better able to describe the experimental beam.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Fiorini
- CRUK – MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology University of OxfordOxfordUK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|