Background and purpose: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) allows for modulation parameterized for individual beamlets by position, intensity, and depth. This modulation capability is ideally suited for sparing organs at risk intermediate of the radiation target, such as hippocampal volumes within the whole brain. This work compared IMPT relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) during hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA WBRT). Materials and methods: Ten adult and ten pediatric patients previously treated for central nervous system malignancies were identified. IMPT and VMAT treatment plans employing HA WBRT were generated for each patient, delivering 30 GyE (Gray Equivalent) in 10 fractions for adults and 36 GyE in 20 fractions for pediatrics. Dose indices, including dose volume histogram metrics and homogeneity index HI = [D5% − D95%]/ [D mean ] × 100, were used to assess plan quality and describe target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. Results: IMPT offered significant benefits relative to VMAT for hippocampal sparing. Hippocampal mean dose was reduced from 13.7 ± 0.8 Gy with VMAT to 5.4 ± 0.3 GyE using IMPT for pediatrics, and was reduced from 11.7 ± 0.9 Gy with VMAT to 4.4 ± 0.2 GyE using IMPT for adults. IMPT similarly lowered left hippocampal mean dose. Dose to 95% of the clinical target volume was statistically equivalent for both groups; however IMPT reduced the homogeneity index by roughly half. Conclusion: This manuscript demonstrates that HA IMPT can match or exceed dosimetric benefits offered with modulated X-rays. Inclusion of IMPT in future prospective studies is warranted.

Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH‐based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond.