3 results on '"Remmes NB"'
Search Results
2. A novel and fast method for proton range verification using a step wedge and 2D scintillator.
- Author
-
Shen J, Allred BC, Robertson DG, Liu W, Sio TT, Remmes NB, Keole SR, and Bues M
- Subjects
- Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Water, Protons, Radiotherapy Dosage
- Abstract
Purpose: To implement and evaluate a novel and fast method for proton range verification by using a planar scintillator and step wedge., Methods: A homogenous proton pencil beam plan with 35 energies was designed and delivered to a 2D flat scintillator with a step wedge. The measurement was repeated 15 times (3 different days, 5 times per day). The scintillator image was smoothed, the Bragg peak and distal fall off regions were fitted by an analytical equation, and the proton range was calculated using simple trigonometry. The accuracy of this method was verified by comparing the measured ranges to those obtained using an ionization chamber and a scanning water tank, the gold standard. The reproducibility was evaluated by comparing the ranges over 15 repeated measurements. The sensitivity was evaluated by delivering to same beam to the system with a film inserted under the wedge., Results: The range accuracy of all 35 proton energies measured over 3 days was within 0.2 mm. The reproducibility in 15 repeated measurements for all 35 proton ranges was ±0.045 mm. The sensitivity to range variation is 0.1 mm for the worst case. This efficient procedure permits measurement of 35 proton ranges in less than 3 min. The automated data processing produces results immediately. The setup of this system took less than 5 min. The time saving by this new method is about two orders of magnitude when compared with the time for water tank range measurements., Conclusions: A novel method using a scintillator with a step wedge to measure the proton range was implemented and evaluated. This novel method is fast and sensitive, and the proton range measured by this method was accurate and highly reproducible., (© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Comparison of two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam.
- Author
-
Whitaker TJ, Beltran C, Tryggestad E, Bues M, Kruse JJ, Remmes NB, Tasson A, and Herman MG
- Subjects
- Brain Neoplasms radiotherapy, Child, Computer Simulation, Head and Neck Neoplasms radiotherapy, Humans, Pancreatic Neoplasms radiotherapy, Phantoms, Imaging, Proton Therapy instrumentation, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted instrumentation, Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated instrumentation, Software, Synchrotrons, Time Factors, Proton Therapy methods, Radiotherapy Dosage, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted methods, Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated methods
- Abstract
Purpose: Delayed charge is a small amount of charge that is delivered to the patient after the planned irradiation is halted, which may degrade the quality of the treatment by delivering unwarranted dose to the patient. This study compares two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam., Methods: The delivery of several treatment plans was simulated by applying a normally distributed value of delayed charge, with a mean of 0.001(SD 0.00025) MU, to each spot. Two correction methods were used to account for the delayed charge. Method one (CM1), which is in active clinical use, accounts for the delayed charge by adjusting the MU of the current spot based on the cumulative MU. Method two (CM2) in addition reduces the planned MU by a predicted value. Every fraction of a treatment was simulated using each method and then recomputed in the treatment planning system. The dose difference between the original plan and the sum of the simulated fractions was evaluated. Both methods were tested in a water phantom with a single beam and simple target geometry. Two separate phantom tests were performed. In one test the dose per fraction was varied from 0.5 to 2 Gy using 25 fractions per plan. In the other test the number fractions were varied from 1 to 25, using 2 Gy per fraction. Three patient plans were used to determine the effect of delayed charge on the delivered dose under realistic clinical conditions. The order of spot delivery using CM1 was investigated by randomly selecting the starting spot for each layer, and by alternating per layer the starting spot from first to last. Only discrete spot scanning was considered in this study., Results: Using the phantom setup and varying the dose per fraction, the maximum dose difference for each plan of 25 fractions was 0.37-0.39 Gy and 0.03-0.05 Gy for CM1 and CM2, respectively. While varying the total number of fractions, the maximum dose difference increased at a rate of 0.015 Gy and 0.0018 Gy per fraction for CM1 and CM2, respectively. For CM1, the largest dose difference was found at the location of the first spot in each energy layer, whereas for CM2 the difference in dose was small and showed no dependence on location. For CM1, all of the fields in the patient plans had an area where their excess dose overlapped. No such correlation was found when using CM2. Randomly selecting the starting spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.15 Gy. Alternating between first and last spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.37 Gy. In the patient plans the excess dose scaled linearly at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1 and standard delivery order., Conclusions: The predictive model CM2 is superior to a cumulative irradiation model CM1 for minimizing the effects of delayed charge, particularly when considering maximal dose discrepancies and the potential for unplanned hot-spots. This study shows that the dose discrepancy potentially scales at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1.
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.