Methodology paper: a novel phantom setup for commissioning of scanned ion beam delivery and TPS

The history of ion beam therapy in Germany

The advantageous depth dose profile of ion beams together with state of the art beam delivery and treatment planning systems allow for highly conformal tumor treatments in patients. First treatments date back to 1954 at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) and in Europe, ion beam therapy started in the mid-1990s at the Paul-Scherrer Institute (PSI) with protons and at the Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research (GSI) with carbon ions, followed by the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT) in Heidelberg. This review describes the historical development of ion beam therapy in Germany based on the pioneering work at LBL and in the context of simultaneous developments in other countries as well as recent developments.

Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons

PURPOSE

This work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons is performed considering current best solutions in commercial TPS.

METHODS

All treatment plans were optimized and calculated using the RayStation TPS (RaySearch, Sweden). The dose distributions calculated with the TPS were compared with measurements using a 24-pinpoint ionization chamber array (T31015, PTW, Germany). Tissue-like inhomogeneities (bone, lung, and soft tissue) were embedded in water, while a target volume of 4 x 4 x 4 cm3 was defined at two different depths behind the heterogeneities. In total, 10 different test cases, with and without range shifter as well as different air gaps, were investigated. Dose distributions inside as well as behind the target volume were evaluated.

RESULTS

Inside the target volume, the mean dose difference between calculations and measurements, averaged over all test cases, was 1.6% for carbon ions. This compares well to the final agreement of 1.5% obtained in water at the commissioning stage of the TPS for carbon ions and is also within the clinically acceptable interval of 3%. The mean dose difference and maximal dose difference obtained outside the target area were 1.8% and 13.4%, respectively. The agreement of dose distributions for carbon ions in the target volumes was comparable or better to that between Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and measurements for protons. Percentage dose differences of more than 10% were present outside the target area behind bone-lung structures, where the carbon ion calculations systematically over predicted the dose. MC dose calculations for protons were superior to carbon ion beams outside the target volumes.

CONCLUSION

The pencil beam dose calculations for carbon ions in RayStation were found to be in good agreement with dosimetric measurements in heterogeneous geometries for points of interest located within the target. Large local discrepancies behind the target may contribute to incorrect dose predictions for organs at risk.

Dynamic lung phantom commissioning for 4D dose assessment in proton therapy

Anthropomorphic phantoms mimicking organ and tumor motion of patients are essential for end-to-end testing of motion mitigation techniques in ion beam therapy. In this work a commissioning procedure developed with the in-house designed respiratory phantom ARDOS (Advanced Radiation DOSimetry system) is presented. The phantom was tested and benchmarked for 4D dose verification in proton therapy, which included: characterization of the tissue equivalent materials from computed tomography (CT) imaging, assessment of dose calculation accuracy in critical structures of the phantom, and testing various detectors for proton dosimetry in the ARDOS phantom. To prove the validity of the CT calibration curve, measured relative stopping powers (RSP) of the ARDOS materials were compared with values from CTs: original and overwritten with known material parameters. Override of rib- and soft-tissue phantom components improved RSP accuracy while inhomogeneous lung tissue, represented by the balsa wood, was better modelled by the CT Hounsfield units. Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations were benchmarked against measurements with a reference Farmer chamber embedded in ARDOS material samples showing less than 3% relative dose difference. Differences between MC calculated dose distributions and those calculated by analytical algorithms for the ARDOS geometry were higher than 20% of the prescribed dose, depending on the position in the phantom. Pinpoint ionization chambers and thermoluminescence dosimeters showed differences of up to 5.5% compared to MC dose calculations for all lung setups in the static phantom. They were also able to detect dose distortions due to motion. EBT3 film dosimetry was shown to be suitable for 2D relative dose characterization, which could provide extended information on dose distributions in the penumbra area. The presented methodology and results can be used for drafting general recommendations for dynamic phantom commissioning, which is an essential step towards end-to-end evaluation of motion mitigation techniques in ion beam therapy.