No abstract

The ability of the DCS to provide collimation to each energy layer yielded better conformity in comparison to fixed aperture plans.

Purpose: To introduce a method to model the 3D dose distribution of laterally asymmetric proton beamlets resulting from collimation. The model enables rapid beamlet calculation for spot scanning (SS) delivery using a novel penumbra-reducing dynamic collimation system (DCS) with two pairs of trimmers oriented perpendicular to each other. Methods: Trimmed beamlet dose distributions in water were simulated with MCNPX and the collimating effects noted in the simulations were validated by experimental measurement. The simulated beamlets were modeled analytically using integral depth dose curves along with an asymmetric Gaussian function to represent fluence in the beam's eye view (BEV). The BEV parameters consisted of Gaussian standard deviations (sigmas) along each primary axis (σ x1 ,σ x2 ,σ y1 ,σ y2 ) together with the spatial location of the maximum dose (µ x ,µ y ). Percent depth dose variation with trimmer position was accounted for with a depth-dependent correction function. Beamlet growth with depth was accounted for by combining the in-air divergence with Hong's fit of the Highland approximation along each axis in the BEV. Results: The beamlet model showed excellent agreement with the Monte Carlo simulation data used as a benchmark. The overall passing rate for a 3D gamma test with 3%/3 mm passing criteria was 96.1% between the analytical model and Monte Carlo data in an example treatment plan. Conclusions: The analytical model is capable of accurately representing individual asymmetric beamlets resulting from use of the DCS. This method enables integration of the DCS into a treatment planning system to perform dose computation in patient datasets. The method could be generalized for use with any SS collimation system in which blades, leaves, or trimmers are used to laterally sharpen beamlets. C 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Purpose: To quantify improvement in target conformity in brain and head and neck tumor treatments resulting from the use of a dynamic collimation system (DCS) with two spot scanning proton therapy delivery systems (universal nozzle, UN, and dedicated nozzle, DN) with median spot sizes of 5.2 and 3.2 mm over a range of energies from 100 to 230 MeV. Methods: Uncollimated and collimated plans were calculated with both UN and DN beam models implemented within our in-house treatment planning system for five brain and ten head and neck datasets in patients previously treated with spot scanning proton therapy. The prescription dose and beam angles from the clinical plans were used for both the UN and DN plans. The average reduction of the mean dose to the 10-mm ring surrounding the target between the uncollimated and collimated plans was calculated for the UN and the DN. Target conformity was analyzed using the mean dose to 1-mm thickness rings surrounding the target at increasing distances ranging from 1 to 10 mm. Results: The average reductions of the 10-mm ring mean dose for the UN and DN plans were 13.7% (95% CI: 11.6%-15.7%; p < 0.0001) and 11.5% (95% CI: 9.5%-13.5%; p < 0.0001) across all brain cases and 7.1% (95% CI: 4.4%-9.8%; p < 0.001) and 6.3% (95% CI: 3.7%-9.0%; p < 0.001), respectively, across all head and neck cases. The collimated UN plans were either more conformal (all brain cases and 60% of the head and neck cases) than or equivalent (40% of the head and neck cases) to the uncollimated DN plans. The collimated DN plans offered the highest conformity. Conclusions: The DCS added either to the UN or DN improved the target conformity. The DCS may be of particular interest for sites with UN systems looking for a more economical solution than upgrading the nozzle to improve the target conformity of their spot scanning proton therapy system. C 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [http://dx

Purpose The aim of this work is to describe the clinical implementation of respiratory‐gated spot‐scanning proton therapy (SSPT) for the treatment of thoracic and abdominal moving targets. The experience of our institution is summarized, from initial acceptance and commissioning tests to the development of standard clinical operating procedures for simulation, motion assessment, motion mitigation, treatment planning, and gated SSPT treatment delivery. Materials and methods A custom respiratory gating interface incorporating the Real‐Time Position Management System (RPM, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was developed in‐house for our synchrotron‐based delivery system. To assess gating performance, a motion phantom and radiochromic films were used to compare gated vs nongated delivery. Site‐specific treatment planning protocols and conservative motion cutoffs were developed, allowing for free‐breathing (FB), breath‐holding (BH), or phase‐gating (Ph‐G). Room usage efficiency of BH and Ph‐G treatments was retrospectively evaluated using beam delivery data retrieved from our record and verify system and DICOM files from patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) procedures. Results More than 70 patients were treated using active motion management between the launch of our motion mitigation program in October 2015 and the end date of data collection of this study in January 2018. During acceptance procedures, we found that overall system latency is clinically‐suitable for Ph‐G. Regarding room usage efficiency, the average number of energy layers delivered per minute was <10 for Ph‐G, 10‐15 for BH and ≥15 for FB, making Ph‐G the slowest treatment modality. When comparing to continuous delivery measured during pretreatment QA procedures, the median values of BH treatment time were extended from 6.6 to 9.3 min (+48%). Ph‐G treatments were extended from 7.3 to 13.0 min (+82%). Conclusions Active motion management has been crucial to the overall success of our SSPT program. Nevertheless, our conservative approach has come with an efficiency cost that is more noticeable in Ph‐G treatments and should be considered in decision‐making.