Search

Purpose An independent dosimetry audit based on end-to-end testing of the entire chain of radiation therapy delivery is highly recommended to ensure consistent treatments among proton therapy centers. This study presents an auditing methodology developed by the MedAustron Ion Beam Therapy Center (Austria) in collaboration with the National Physical Laboratory (UK) and audit results for five scanned proton beam therapy facilities in Europe. Methods The audit procedure used a homogeneous and an anthropomorphic head phantom. The phantoms were loaded either with an ionization chamber or with alanine pellets and radiochromic films. Homogeneously planned doses of 10 Gy were delivered to a box-like target volume in the homogeneous phantom and to two clinical scenarios with increasing complexity in the head phantom. Results For all tests the mean of the local differences of the absolute dose to water determined with the alanine pellets compared to the predicted dose from the treatment planning system installed at the audited institution was determined. The mean value taken over all tests performed was −0.1 ± 1.0%. The measurements carried out with the ionization chamber were consistent with the dose determined by the alanine pellets with a mean deviation of −0.5 ± 0.6%. Conclusion The developed dosimetry audit method was successfully applied at five proton centers including various “turn-key” Cyclotron solutions by IBA, Varian and Mevion. This independent audit with extension to other tumour sites and use of the correspondent anthropomorphic phantoms may be proposed as part of a credentialing procedure for future clinical trials in proton beam therapy.

Purpose To commission the treatment planning system (TPS) RayStation for proton therapy including beam models for spot scanning and for uniform scanning. Methods Tests consist of procedures from ESTRO booklet number 7, the German DIN for constancy checks of TPSs, and extra tests checking the dose perturbation function. The dose distributions within patients were verified in silico by a comparison of 65 clinical treatment plans with the TPS XiO. Dose-volume parameters, dose differences, and three-dimensional gamma-indices serve as measures of similarity. The monthly constancy checks of Raystation have been automatized with a script. Results The basic functionality of the software complies with ESTRO booklet number 7. For a few features minor enhancements are suggested. The dose distribution in RayStation agrees with the calculation in XiO. This is supported by a gamma-index (3 mm/3%) pass rate of >98.9% (median over 59 plans) for the volume within the 20% isodose line and a difference of V 95 of the PTV (median over 59 plans). If spot scanning is used together with a range shifter, the dose level calculated by RayStation can be off by a few percent. Conclusions RayStation can be used for the creation of clinical proton treatment plans. Compared to XiO RayStation has an improved modelling of the lateral dose fall-off in passively delivered fields. For spot scanning fields with range shifter blocks an empirical adjustment of monitor units is required. The computation of perturbed doses also allows the evaluation of the robustness of a treatment plan.

Acquisition of quasi‐monoenergetic ("pristine") depth‐dose curves is an essential task in the frame of commissioning and quality assurance of a proton therapy treatment head. For pencil beam scanning delivery modes this is often accomplished by measuring the integral ionization in a plane perpendicular to the axis of an unscanned beam. We focus on the evaluation of three integral detectors: two of them are plane‐parallel ionization chambers with an effective radius of 4.1 cm and 6.0 cm, respectively, mounted in a scanning water phantom. The third integral detector is a 6.0 cm radius multilayer ionization chamber. The experimental results are compared with the corresponding measurements under broad field conditions, which are performed with a small radius plane‐parallel chamber and a small radius multilayer ionization chamber. We study how a measured depth‐dose curve of a pristine proton field depends on the detection device, by evaluating the shape of the depth‐dose curve, the relative charge collection efficiency, and intercomparing measured ranges. Our results show that increasing the radius of an integral chamber from 4.1 cm to 6.0 cm increases the collection efficiency by 0%–3.5% depending on beam energy and depth. Ranges can be determined by the large electrode multilayer ionization chamber with a typical uncertainty of 0.4 mm on a routine basis. The large electrode multilayer ionization chamber exhibits a small distortion in the Bragg Peak region. This prohibits its use for acquisition of base data, but is tolerable for quality assurance. The good range accuracy and the peak distortion are characteristics of the multilayer ionization chamber design, as shown by the direct comparison with the small electrode counterpart. PACS number: 87.55.Qr

We present here a novel method for using a single device in the daily quality assurance (QA) of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton beams and an improved method for uniform scanning (US). The device can be used to measure the spot position, spot sigma, range, output, collinearity of the X‐ray system and proton beam, and to QA the first scatterers and a number of other imaging and mechanical checks. We have performed the daily QA according to this procedure for more than six months in both a PBS gantry and a US gantry. All of the tests were found to be sensitive and accurate enough to determine if the property being tested is within the tolerance. The output has remained within the ±2% tolerance, with the majority of measurements within ±1%, and the range was within ±0.5mm. The collinearity of the proton beam in both gantries is within the ±1mm tolerance in both X and Y directions for all measurements. A novel procedure to measure the functionality of the first scatterers in the US gantry is included in the QA procedure. It was found to be sensitive enough to pick up the thinnest scatterer of 0.6 mm in both possible failure methods — when it always remains in the beam or in the case when it never goes into the beam. The daily QA procedure presented here can be implemented at PBS or US proton therapy centers with a minimal outlay for equipment and setup time. The procedure can be performed in less than 30 min, and has been found to be accurate and reliable enough for the QA of a proton therapy gantry before patient treatment every day. PACS number: 87.55.Qr