No abstract

Simple WT radiotherapy delivered in vDIBH achieves satisfactory coverage of the IMC while meeting heart and lung dose constraints. However, where higher isodose coverage is required, VMAT(vDIBH) is the optimal photon technique. The lowest OAR doses are achieved by PBT, in which the use of vDIBH does not improve dose statistics.

The purpose of this study is to validate a monitor unit (MU) calculation procedure for passively scattered proton therapy beams. The output dose per MU (d/MU) of a therapeutic radiation beam is traditionally calibrated under specific reference conditions. These conditions include beam energy, field size, suitable depth in water or water equivalent phantom in a low dose gradient region with known relative depth dose, and source to point of calibration distance. Treatment field settings usually differ from these reference conditions leading to a different d/MU that needs to be determined for delivering the prescribed dose. For passively scattered proton beams, the proton specific parameters, which need to be defined, are related to the energy, lateral scatterers, range modulating wheel, spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) width, thickness of any range shifter, the depth dose value relative to the normalization point in the SOBP, and scatter both from the range compensator and inhomogeneity in the patient. Following the custom for photons or electrons, a set of proton dosimetry factors, representing the changes in the d/MU relative to a reference condition, can be defined as the relative output factor (ROF), SOBP factor (SOBPF), range shifter factor (RSF), SOBP off-center factor (SOBPOCF), off-center ratio (OCR), inverse square factor (ISF), field size factor (FSF), and compensator and patient scatter factor (CPSF). The ROF, SOBPF, and RSF are the major contributors to the d/MU and were measured using an ion chamber in water tank during the clinical commissioning of each beam to create a dosimetry beam data table to be used for calculating the monitor units. The following simple formula is found to provide an independent method to determine the d/MU at the point of interest (POI) in the patient, namely, (d/MU) = ROF SOBPF. RSF SOBPOCF.OCR.FSF.ISF.CPSF. The monitor units for delivering the intended dose (D) to the POI can be obtained from MU = D / (d/MU). The accuracy and robustness of the above formula were validated by calculating the d/MU in water for many different combinations of beam parameters and comparing it with the corresponding measured d/MU by an ion chamber in a water or water/plastic phantom. This procedure has been in use for MU calculation for patient treatment fields at our facility since May 2006. The differences in the calculated and measured values of the d/MU for 623 distinct fields used for patient treatment during the period of May 2006 to February 2007 are within 2% for 99% of these fields. The authors conclude that an intuitive formula similar to the one used for monitor unit calculation of therapeutic photon beams can be used to compute the monitor units of passively scattered proton therapy beams.

No abstract

BackgroundAs the number of proton therapy centers increases, so does the need for studies which compare proton treatments between institutions and with photon therapy. However, results of such studies are highly dependent on target volume definition and treatment planning techniques. Thus, standardized methods of treatment planning are needed, particularly for proton treatment planning, in which special consideration is paid to the depth and sharp distal fall-off of the proton distribution. This study presents and evaluates a standardized method of proton treatment planning for craniospinal irradiation (CSI).MethodsWe applied our institution’s planning methodology for proton CSI, at the time of the study, to an anatomically diverse population of 18 pediatric patients. We evaluated our dosimetric results for the population as a whole and for the two subgroups having two different age-specific target volumes using the minimum, maximum, and mean dose values in 10 organs (i.e., the spinal cord, brain, eyes, lenses, esophagus, lungs, kidneys, thyroid, heart, and liver). We also report isodose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVH) for 2 representative patients. Additionally we report population-averaged DVHs for various organs.ResultsThe planning methodology here describes various techniques used to achieve normal tissue sparing. In particular, we found pronounced dose reductions in three radiosensitive organs (i.e., eyes, esophagus, and thyroid) which were identified for optimization. Mean doses to the thyroid, eyes, and esophagus were 0.2%, 69% and 0.2%, respectively, of the prescribed dose. In four organs not specifically identified for optimization (i.e., lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart) we found that organs lateral to the treatment field (lungs and kidneys) received relatively low mean doses (less than 8% of the prescribed dose), whereas the heart and liver, organs distal to the treatment field, received less than 1% of the prescribed dose.ConclusionsThis study described and evaluated a standardized method for proton treatment planning for CSI. Overall, the standardized planning methodology yielded consistently high quality treatment plans and perhaps most importantly, it did so for an anatomically diverse patient population.