For CSI treatments delivered with a Mevion single-gantry proton therapy system, we found measured neutron dose was consistent with dose equivalents reported for CSI with other proton beamlines.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate intrafraction prostate motion in patients treated with proton therapy and an endorectal balloon or a hydrogel spacer using orthogonal x‐rays acquired before and after each treatment field. This study evaluated 10 patients (662 fields throughout treatment) treated daily with an endorectal balloon (ERB) and 16 patients (840 fields throughout treatment) treated with a hydrogel spacer (GEL) without an ERB. Patient shifts were recorded before and after each treatment field, correlated with a treatment time, using x‐ray imaging and implanted fiducial alignment. For each shift, recorded in X, Y, and Z, a 3D vector was calculated to determine the positional change. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean vector shift between ERB (0.06 cm) and GEL (0.09 cm), (P < 0.001). The mean includes a large number of zero shifts, but the smallest non‐zero shift recorded was 0.2 cm. The largest shifts were, on average, in the Z direction (anterior to posterior). The average Z shift was +0.02 cm for both ERB and GEL. There was no statistical difference between ERB and GEL for shifts greater than 0.3 cm (P = 0.13) or greater than 0.5 cm (P = 0.36). For treatment times between 5 and 9 min, a majority of shifts were less than 0.2 cm, 85.9% for ERB and 73.2% for GEL. There was a significant positive correlation between the vector shifts and field time for both ERB (r = 0.2, P < 0.001) and GEL (r = 0.07, P < 0.04). We have shown that prostate motion is clinically comparable between an ERB and a hydrogel spacer, and the time dependencies are similar. A large majority of shifts for both ERB and hydrogel are well within a typical robust planning margin. For GEL patients, we chose to maintain slightly larger planning margins than for ERB due to already improved rectal sparing with GEL.

Purpose Our purposes are to compare the accuracy of RaySearch's analytical pencil beam (APB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for clinical proton therapy and to present clinical validation data using a novel animal tissue lung phantom. Methods We constructed a realistic lung phantom composed of a rack of lamb resting on a stack of rectangular natural cork slabs simulating lung tissue. The tumor was simulated using 70% lean ground lamb meat inserted in a spherical hole with diameter 40 ± 5 mm carved into the cork slabs. A single‐field plan using an anterior beam and a two‐field plan using two anterior‐oblique beams were delivered to the phantom. Ion chamber array measurements were taken medial and distal to the tumor. Measured doses were compared with calculated RayStation APB and MC calculated doses. Results Our lung phantom enabled measurements with the MatriXX PT at multiple depths in the phantom. Using the MC calculations, the 3%/3 mm gamma index pass rates, comparing measured with calculated doses, for the distal planes were 74.5% and 85.3% for the APB and 99.1% and 92% for the MC algorithms. The measured data revealed up to 46% and 30% underdosing within the distal regions of the target volume for the single and the two field plans when APB calculations are used. These discrepancies reduced to less than 18% and 7% respectively using the MC calculations. Conclusions RaySearch Laboratories' Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm is superior to the pencil‐beam algorithm for lung targets. Clinicians relying on the analytical pencil‐beam algorithm should be aware of its pitfalls for this site and verify dose prior to delivery. We conclude that the RayStation MC algorithm is reliable and more accurate than the APB algorithm for lung targets and therefore should be used to plan proton therapy for patients with lung cancer.

By implementing MRI for EPB, we eliminate reliance on approximations of the eye and tumor shape and the assumption of idealized plaque placement. With MRI, one can perform preimplant as well as postimplant imaging, facilitating EPB treatment planning based on the actual patient-specific geometry and dose-delivery verification based on the imaged plaque position.

PurposeOur purposes are to compare the accuracy of RaySearch's analytical pencil beam (APB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for clinical proton therapy and to present clinical validation data using a novel animal tissue lung phantom.MethodsWe constructed a realistic lung phantom composed of a rack of lamb resting on a stack of rectangular natural cork slabs simulating lung tissue. The tumor was simulated using 70% lean ground lamb meat inserted in a spherical hole with diameter 40 ± 5 mm carved into the cork slabs. A single‐field plan using an anterior beam and a two‐field plan using two anterior‐oblique beams were delivered to the phantom. Ion chamber array measurements were taken medial and distal to the tumor. Measured doses were compared with calculated RayStation APB and MC calculated doses.ResultsOur lung phantom enabled measurements with the MatriXX PT at multiple depths in the phantom. Using the MC calculations, the 3%/3 mm gamma index pass rates, comparing measured with calculated doses, for the distal planes were 74.5% and 85.3% for the APB and 99.1% and 92% for the MC algorithms. The measured data revealed up to 46% and 30% underdosing within the distal regions of the target volume for the single and the two field plans when APB calculations are used. These discrepancies reduced to less than 18% and 7% respectively using the MC calculations.ConclusionsRaySearch Laboratories' Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm is superior to the pencil‐beam algorithm for lung targets. Clinicians relying on the analytical pencil‐beam algorithm should be aware of its pitfalls for this site and verify dose prior to delivery. We conclude that the RayStation MC algorithm is reliable and more accurate than the APB algorithm for lung targets and therefore should be used to plan proton therapy for patients with lung cancer.