Time‐resolved diode dosimetry calibration through Monte Carlo modeling for in vivo passive scattered proton therapy range verification

Abstract

PurposeOur group previously introduced an in vivo proton range verification methodology in which a silicon diode array system is used to correlate the dose rate profile per range modulation wheel cycle of the detector signal to the water‐equivalent path length (WEPL) for passively scattered proton beam delivery. The implementation of this system requires a set of calibration data to establish a beam‐specific response to WEPL fit for the selected ‘scout’ beam (a 1 cm overshoot of the predicted detector depth with a dose of 4 cGy) in water‐equivalent plastic. This necessitates a separate set of measurements for every ‘scout’ beam that may be appropriate to the clinical case. The current study demonstrates the use of Monte Carlo simulations for calibration of the time‐resolved diode dosimetry technique.MethodsMeasurements for three ‘scout’ beams were compared against simulated detector response with Monte Carlo methods using the Tool for Particle Simulation (TOPAS). The ‘scout’ beams were then applied in the simulation environment to simulated water‐equivalent plastic, a CT of water‐equivalent plastic, and a patient CT data set to assess uncertainty.ResultsSimulated detector response in water‐equivalent plastic was validated against measurements for ‘scout’ spread out Bragg peaks of range 10 cm, 15 cm, and 21 cm (168 MeV, 177 MeV, and 210 MeV) to within 3.4 mm for all beams, and to within 1 mm in the region where the detector is expected to lie.ConclusionFeasibility has been shown for performing the calibration of the detector response for three ‘scout’ beams through simulation for the time‐resolved diode dosimetry technique in passive scattered proton delivery.

A new DOSXYZnrc method for Monte Carlo simulations of 4D dose distributions

“…In that case, particles are time-stamped, not MU-stamped, as it is also the case with the Geant4/GATE/TOPAS MC codes (see, e.g. Paganetti (2004) and Toltz et al (2017), in addition to the Geant4 main references cited in the Introduction). There are differences in the way time or time-like variables are handled in EGSnrc and Geant4 codes, but a detailed comparison is outside the scope of this paper.…”