Purpose To summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston. Methods and Materials 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using five different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using TLD and film, respectively. The difference between measured and planned dose was studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation. Results The phantom pass rate (overall 79%) is high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduce higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, as compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between TPS and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve. Conclusions The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as TPS dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and the irradiation of multiple targets.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To describe the results of IROC Houston's international and domestic end‐to‐end QA phantom irradiations. Methods: IROC Houston has anthropomorphic lung, liver, head and neck, prostate, SRS and spine phantoms that are used for credentialing and quality assurance purposes. The phantoms include structures that closely mimic targets and organs at risk and are made from tissue equivalent materials: high impact polystyrene, solid water, cork and acrylic. Motion tables are used to mimic breathing motion for some lung and liver phantoms. Dose is measured with TLD and radiochromic film in various planes within the target of the phantoms. Results: The most common phantom requested is the head and neck followed by the lung phantom. The head and neck phantom was sent to 800 domestic and 148 international sites between 2011 and 2015, with average pass rates of 89% and 92%, respectively. During the past five years, a general upward trend exists regarding demand for the lung phantom for both international and domestic sites with international sites more than tripling from 5 (2011) to 16 (2015) and domestic sites doubling from 66 (2011) to 152 (2015). The pass rate for lung phantoms has been consistent from year to year despite this large increase in the number of phantoms irradiated with an average pass rate of 85% (domestic) and 95% (international) sites. The percentage of lung phantoms used in combination with motions tables increased from 38% to 79% over the 5 year time span. Conclusion: The number of domestic and international sites irradiating the head and neck and lung phantoms continues to increase and the pass rates remained constant. These end‐to‐end QA tests continue to be a crucial part of clinical trial credentialing and institution quality assurance. This investigation was supported by IROC grant CA180803 awarded by the NCI.

Purpose: To describe the proton phantoms that IROC Houston uses to approve and credential proton institutions to participate in NCI‐sponsored clinical trials. Methods: Photon phantoms cannot necessarily be used for proton measurements because protons react differently than photons in some plastics. As such plastics that are tissue equivalent for protons were identified. Another required alteration is to ensure that the film dosimeters are housed in the phantom with no air gap to avoid proton streaming. Proton‐equivalent plastics/materials used include RMI Solid Water, Techron HPV, blue water, RANDO soft tissue material, balsa wood, compressed cork and polyethylene. Institutions wishing to be approved or credentialed request a phantom and are prioritized for delivery. At the institution, the phantom is imaged, a treatment plan is developed, positioned on the treatment couch and the treatment is delivered. The phantom is returned and the measured dose distributions are compared to the institution's electronically submitted treatment plan dosimetry data. Results: IROC Houston has developed an extensive proton phantom approval/credentialing program consisting of five different phantoms designs: head, prostate, lung, liver and spine. The phantoms are made with proton equivalent plastics that have HU and relative stopping powers similar (within 5%) of human tissues. They also have imageable targets, avoidance structures, and heterogeneities. TLD and radiochromic film are contained in the target structures. There have been 13 head, 33 prostate, 18 lung, 2 liver and 16 spine irradiations with either passive scatter, or scanned proton beams. The pass rates have been: 100%, 69.7%, 72.2%, 50%, and 81.3%, respectively. Conclusion: IROC Houston has responded to the recent surge in proton facilities by developing a family of anthropomorphic phantoms that are able to be used for remote audits of proton beams. Work supported by PHS grant CA10953 and CA081647