The Impact of Dose Calibration Point Differences Between the Treatment Plan and Patient-specific Quality Assurance in Passive Scattering Proton Beam Therapy

Overview

Journal In Vivo

Specialty Oncology

Date 2024 Aug 26

PMID 39187337

Authors

Yutaro Mori

Tomonori Isobe

Hideyuki Takei

Satoshi Kamizawa

Tetsuya Tomita

Daisuke Kobayashi

Hideyuki Sakurai

Takeji Sakae

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background/aim: Passive scattering proton beam therapy (PSPT) is performed by taking actual measurements of all pre-designated fields in a treatment plan followed by appropriate adjustments to the prescribed dose. For this reason, it is necessary to ensure precision management of the measurements (patient-specific calibration) in the administration of a planned dose. Therefore, this study investigated the impact on dose distribution in treatment planning when the patient calibration point differs from the normalized point in a treatment plan.

Patients And Methods: A total of 16 cases were selected, where the patient calibration point and normalized point did not match, and the normalized point used in the treatment plan was changed to the patient calibration point using a treatment planning system (VQA ver. 2.01, HITACHI). At this point, the displacement of the relative dose at the isocenter was estimated as an error owing to the difference compared to the patient calibration point.

Results: Overall, the error was within the range of ±1.5%, with the exception of orbit cases. Calibrated points also tended to be lower than the normalized points in the treatment plan. In terms of treatment sites, a greater deviation was observed for head cases. Cases with a large deviation in sites other than the head were attributed to poor flatness within the radiation field owing to a narrower opening of the patient collimator.

Conclusion: Dose measurement errors in PSPT due to differing calibration points were generally within ±1.5%, with higher deviations observed in head treatments because of complex structures and narrow collimator openings. A γ analysis for significant deviations showed a 98.7% passing rate, suggesting limited overall impact. It is important to select stable calibration points in dosimetry to ensure high precision in dose administration, particularly in complex treatment areas.

References

Smith A, Gillin M, Bues M, Zhu X, Suzuki K, Mohan R . The M. D. Anderson proton therapy system. Med Phys. 2009; 36(9):4068-83. DOI: 10.1118/1.3187229. View

Chavaudra J, Bridier A . [Definition of volumes in external radiotherapy: ICRU reports 50 and 62]. Cancer Radiother. 2001; 5(5):472-8. DOI: 10.1016/s1278-3218(01)00117-2. View

Mohan R . A Review of Proton Therapy - Current Status and Future Directions. Precis Radiat Oncol. 2022; 6(2):164-176. PMC: 9499036. DOI: 10.1002/pro6.1149. View

Jo K, Chung E, Han Y, Ahn S, Sheen H, Cho S . Monitor unit prediction model for wobbling proton therapy with ridge filters. Med Phys. 2021; 48(12):8107-8116. DOI: 10.1002/mp.15277. View

Iizumi T, Ishikawa H, Sekino Y, Tanaka K, Takizawa D, Makishima H . Acute toxicity and patient-reported symptom score after conventional versus moderately hypofractionated proton therapy for prostate cancer. J Med Radiat Sci. 2021; 69(2):198-207. PMC: 9163454. DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.551. View

Mohan R, Grosshans D . Proton therapy - Present and future. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016; 109:26-44. PMC: 5303653. DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.11.006. View

Vernimmen F, Mohamed Z, Slabbert J, Wilson J . Long-term results of stereotactic proton beam radiotherapy for acoustic neuromas. Radiother Oncol. 2008; 90(2):208-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.11.004. View

Bonnett D . Current developments in proton therapy: a review. Phys Med Biol. 1993; 38(10):1371-92. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/38/10/001. View

Newhauser W, Koch N, Hummel S, Ziegler M, Titt U . Monte Carlo simulations of a nozzle for the treatment of ocular tumours with high-energy proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2005; 50(22):5229-49. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/22/002. View

10.

Kooy H, Schaefer M, Rosenthal S, Bortfeld T . Monitor unit calculations for range-modulated spread-out Bragg peak fields. Phys Med Biol. 2003; 48(17):2797-808. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/48/17/305. View

11.

Vatnitsky S, Miller D, Moyers M, LEVY R, Schulte R, Slater J . Dosimetry techniques for narrow proton beam radiosurgery. Phys Med Biol. 1999; 44(11):2789-801. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/44/11/308. View

12.

Urie M, Sisterson J, Koehler A, Goitein M, Zoesman J . Proton beam penumbra: effects of separation between patient and beam modifying devices. Med Phys. 1986; 13(5):734-41. DOI: 10.1118/1.595974. View

13.

Sahoo N, Zhu X, Arjomandy B, Ciangaru G, Lii M, Amos R . A procedure for calculation of monitor units for passively scattered proton radiotherapy beams. Med Phys. 2008; 35(11):5088-97. DOI: 10.1118/1.2992055. View

14.

Titt U, Zheng Y, Vassiliev O, Newhauser W . Monte Carlo investigation of collimator scatter of proton-therapy beams produced using the passive scattering method. Phys Med Biol. 2008; 53(2):487-504. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/2/014. View