Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Dynamic Collimation System (DCS) has been shown to produce superior treatment plans to uncollimated pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using an in‐house treatment planning system (TPS) designed for research. Clinical implementation of the DCS requires the development and benchmarking of a rigorous dose calculation algorithm that accounts for pencil beam trimming, performs monitor unit calculations to produce deliverable plans at all beam energies, and is ideally implemented with a commercially available TPS. Purpose: To present an analytical Pencil bEam TRimming Algorithm (PETRA) for the DCS, with and without its range shifter, implemented in the Astroid TPS (.decimal, Sanford, Florida, USA). Materials: PETRA was derived by generalizing an existing pencil beam dose calculation model to account for the DCS‐specific effects of lateral penumbra blurring due to the nickel trimmers in two different planes, integral depth dose variation due to the trimming process, and the presence and absence of the range shifter. Tuning parameters were introduced to enable agreement between PETRA and a measurement‐validated Dynamic Collimation Monte Carlo (DCMC) model of the Miami Cancer Institute's IBA Proteus Plus system equipped with the DCS. Trimmer position, spot position, beam energy, and the presence or absence of a range shifter were all used as variables for the characterization of the model. The model was calibrated for pencil beam monitor unit calculations using procedures specified by International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Report Series 398 (IAEA TRS‐398). Results: The integral depth dose curves (IDDs) for energies between 70 MeV and 160 MeV among all simulated trimmer combinations, with and without the ranger shifter, agreed between PETRA and DCMC at the 1%/1 mm 1‐D gamma criteria for 99.99% of points. For lateral dose profiles, the median 2‐D gamma pass rate for all profiles at 1.5%/1.5 mm was 99.99% at the water phantom surface, plateau, and Bragg peak depths without the range shifter and at the surface and Bragg peak depths with the range shifter. The minimum 1.5%/1.5 mm gamma pass rates for the 2‐D profiles at the water phantom surface without and with the range shifter were 98.02% and 97.91%, respectively, and, at the Bragg peak, the minimum pass rates were 97.80% and 97.5%, respectively. Conclusion: The PETRA model for DCS dose calculations was successfully defined and benchmarked for use in a commercially available TPS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy target dose conformity can be improved with energy layer-specific collimation. One such collimator is the dynamic collimation system (DCS), which consists of four nickel trimmer blades that intercept the scanning beam as it approaches the lateral extent of the target. While the dosimetric benefits of the DCS have been demonstrated through computational treatment planning studies, there has yet to be experimental verification of these benefits for composite multi-energy layer fields. The objective of this work is to dosimetrically characterize and experimentally validate the delivery of dynamically collimated proton therapy with the DCS equipped to a clinical PBS system. Approach. Optimized single field, uniform dose treatment plans for 3 × 3 × 3 cm3 target volumes were generated using Monte Carlo dose calculations with depths ranging from 5 to 15 cm, trimmer-to-surface distances ranging from 5 to 18.15 cm, with and without a 4 cm thick polyethylene range shifter. Treatment plans were then delivered to a water phantom using a prototype DCS and an IBA dedicated nozzle system and measured with a Zebra multilayer ionization chamber, a MatriXX PT ionization chamber array, and Gafchromic™ EBT3 film. Main results. For measurements made within the SOBPs, average 2D gamma pass rates exceeded 98.5% for the MatriXX PT and 96.5% for film at the 2%/2 mm criterion across all measured uncollimated and collimated plans, respectively. For verification of the penumbra width reduction with collimation, film agreed with Monte Carlo with differences within 0.3 mm on average compared to 0.9 mm for the MatriXX PT. Significance. We have experimentally verified the delivery of DCS-collimated fields using a clinical PBS system and commonly available dosimeters and have also identified potential weaknesses for dosimeters subject to steep dose gradients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: When designing a collimation system for pencil beam spot scanning proton therapy, a decision must be made whether or not to rotate, or focus, the collimator to match beamlet deflection as a function of off‐axis distance. If the collimator is not focused, the beamlet shape and fluence will vary as a function of off‐axis distance due to partial transmission through the collimator. In this work, we quantify the magnitude of these effects and propose a focused dynamic collimation system (DCS) for use in proton therapy spot scanning. Methods: This study was done in silico using a model of the Miami Cancer Institute's (MCI) IBA Proteus Plus system created in Geant4‐based TOPAS. The DCS utilizes rectangular nickel trimmers mounted on rotating sliders that move in synchrony with the pencil beam to provide focused collimation at the edge of the target. Using a simplified setup of the DCS, simulations were performed at various off‐axis locations corresponding to beam deflection angles ranging from 0° to 2.5°. At each off‐axis location, focused (trimmer rotated) and unfocused (trimmer not rotated) simulations were performed. In all simulations, a 4 cm water equivalent thickness range shifter was placed upstream of the collimator, and a voxelized water phantom that scored dose was placed downstream, each with 4 cm airgaps. Results: Increasing the beam deflection angle for an unfocused trimmer caused the collimated edge of the beamlet profile to shift 0.08–0.61 mm from the baseline 0° simulation. There was also an increase in low‐dose regions on the collimated edge ranging from 14.6% to 192.4%. Lastly, the maximum dose, Dmax, was 0–5% higher for the unfocused simulations. With a focused trimmer design, the profile shift and dose increases were all eliminated. Conclusions: We have shown that focusing a collimator in spot scanning proton therapy reduces dose at the collimated edge compared to conventional, unfocused collimation devices and presented a simple, mechanical design for achieving focusing for a range of source‐to‐collimator distances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]