Patient‐specific quality assurance of dynamically‐collimated proton therapy treatment plans
Background The dynamic collimation system (DCS) provides energy layer‐specific collimation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using two pairs of orthogonal nickel trimmer blades. While excellent measurement‐to‐calculation agreement has been demonstrated for simple cube‐shaped DCS‐trimmed...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2024-09, Vol.51 (9), p.5901-5910 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 5910 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 5901 |
container_title | Medical physics (Lancaster) |
container_volume | 51 |
creator | Bennett, Laura C. Hyer, Daniel E. Vu, Justin Patwardhan, Kaustubh Erhart, Kevin Gutierrez, Alonso N. Pons, Eduardo Jensen, Eric Ubau, Manual Zapata, Julio Wroe, Andrew Wake, Karsten Nelson, Nicholas P. Culberson, Wesley S. Smith, Blake R. Hill, Patrick M. Flynn, Ryan T. |
description | Background
The dynamic collimation system (DCS) provides energy layer‐specific collimation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using two pairs of orthogonal nickel trimmer blades. While excellent measurement‐to‐calculation agreement has been demonstrated for simple cube‐shaped DCS‐trimmed dose distributions, no comparison of measurement and dose calculation has been made for patient‐specific treatment plans.
Purpose
To validate a patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) process for DCS‐trimmed PBS treatment plans and evaluate the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.
Methods
Three intracranial patient cases were considered. Standard uncollimated PBS and DCS‐collimated treatment plans were generated for each patient using the Astroid treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were recalculated in a water phantom and delivered at the Miami Cancer Institute (MCI) using an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) dedicated nozzle system and prototype DCS. Planar dose measurements were acquired at two depths within low‐gradient regions of the target volume using an IBA MatriXX ion chamber array.
Results
Measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using 2D gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criteria and low dose threshold of 10% of the maximum dose. Median gamma pass rates across all plans and measurement depths were 99.0% (PBS) and 98.3% (DCS), with a minimum gamma pass rate of 88.5% (PBS) and 91.2% (DCS).
Conclusions
The PSQA process has been validated and experimentally verified for DCS‐collimated PBS. Dosimetric agreement between the measured and calculated doses was demonstrated to be similar for DCS‐collimated PBS to that achievable with noncollimated PBS. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/mp.17295 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3077176317</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3077176317</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2125-1b779b4ec2de21ae1b8d017479165c7cf5e16a51e5b1f28be940bd80703a44bb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EoqUg8QQoI0vKtWPXyYgq_qQiOsBs2c6NCHJ-GjtC2XgEnpEnIdACE9Ndjo6-ewg5pTCnAOyiaudUskzskSnjMok5g2yfTAEyHjMOYkKOvH8BgEUi4JBMkjSTkqViStRahxLr8PH27lu0ZVHaaNNrV4Yh0t73na4tRk0R5UOtq9Jq54aRtY1zZaUD5lHbNaGpo_CMnW6HKHSoQzUao9bp2h-Tg0I7jye7OyNP11ePy9t49XBzt7xcxZZRJmJqpMwMR8tyZFQjNWkOVHKZ0YWw0hYC6UILisLQgqUGMw4mT0FCojk3JpmR8613nLPp0QdVld6iGzdg03uVgJRULhIq_1DbNd53WKi2G3_pBkVBfeVUVau-c47o2c7amwrzX_Cn3wjEW-C1dDj8K1L3663wE0_Ngao</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3077176317</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patient‐specific quality assurance of dynamically‐collimated proton therapy treatment plans</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Bennett, Laura C. ; Hyer, Daniel E. ; Vu, Justin ; Patwardhan, Kaustubh ; Erhart, Kevin ; Gutierrez, Alonso N. ; Pons, Eduardo ; Jensen, Eric ; Ubau, Manual ; Zapata, Julio ; Wroe, Andrew ; Wake, Karsten ; Nelson, Nicholas P. ; Culberson, Wesley S. ; Smith, Blake R. ; Hill, Patrick M. ; Flynn, Ryan T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Laura C. ; Hyer, Daniel E. ; Vu, Justin ; Patwardhan, Kaustubh ; Erhart, Kevin ; Gutierrez, Alonso N. ; Pons, Eduardo ; Jensen, Eric ; Ubau, Manual ; Zapata, Julio ; Wroe, Andrew ; Wake, Karsten ; Nelson, Nicholas P. ; Culberson, Wesley S. ; Smith, Blake R. ; Hill, Patrick M. ; Flynn, Ryan T.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The dynamic collimation system (DCS) provides energy layer‐specific collimation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using two pairs of orthogonal nickel trimmer blades. While excellent measurement‐to‐calculation agreement has been demonstrated for simple cube‐shaped DCS‐trimmed dose distributions, no comparison of measurement and dose calculation has been made for patient‐specific treatment plans.
Purpose
To validate a patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) process for DCS‐trimmed PBS treatment plans and evaluate the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.
Methods
Three intracranial patient cases were considered. Standard uncollimated PBS and DCS‐collimated treatment plans were generated for each patient using the Astroid treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were recalculated in a water phantom and delivered at the Miami Cancer Institute (MCI) using an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) dedicated nozzle system and prototype DCS. Planar dose measurements were acquired at two depths within low‐gradient regions of the target volume using an IBA MatriXX ion chamber array.
Results
Measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using 2D gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criteria and low dose threshold of 10% of the maximum dose. Median gamma pass rates across all plans and measurement depths were 99.0% (PBS) and 98.3% (DCS), with a minimum gamma pass rate of 88.5% (PBS) and 91.2% (DCS).
Conclusions
The PSQA process has been validated and experimentally verified for DCS‐collimated PBS. Dosimetric agreement between the measured and calculated doses was demonstrated to be similar for DCS‐collimated PBS to that achievable with noncollimated PBS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mp.17295</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38977285</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; collimation ; dose calculation ; dynamic collimation ; dynamic collimation system (DCS) ; Humans ; pencil beam scanning (PBS) ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Precision Medicine ; proton therapy ; Proton Therapy - instrumentation ; Proton Therapy - methods ; Quality Assurance, Health Care ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; spot scanning</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2024-09, Vol.51 (9), p.5901-5910</ispartof><rights>2024 The Author(s). published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2024 The Author(s). Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2125-1b779b4ec2de21ae1b8d017479165c7cf5e16a51e5b1f28be940bd80703a44bb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fmp.17295$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fmp.17295$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38977285$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Laura C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyer, Daniel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vu, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patwardhan, Kaustubh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erhart, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez, Alonso N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pons, Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ubau, Manual</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zapata, Julio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wroe, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wake, Karsten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Nicholas P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Culberson, Wesley S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Blake R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Patrick M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flynn, Ryan T.</creatorcontrib><title>Patient‐specific quality assurance of dynamically‐collimated proton therapy treatment plans</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Background
The dynamic collimation system (DCS) provides energy layer‐specific collimation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using two pairs of orthogonal nickel trimmer blades. While excellent measurement‐to‐calculation agreement has been demonstrated for simple cube‐shaped DCS‐trimmed dose distributions, no comparison of measurement and dose calculation has been made for patient‐specific treatment plans.
Purpose
To validate a patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) process for DCS‐trimmed PBS treatment plans and evaluate the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.
Methods
Three intracranial patient cases were considered. Standard uncollimated PBS and DCS‐collimated treatment plans were generated for each patient using the Astroid treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were recalculated in a water phantom and delivered at the Miami Cancer Institute (MCI) using an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) dedicated nozzle system and prototype DCS. Planar dose measurements were acquired at two depths within low‐gradient regions of the target volume using an IBA MatriXX ion chamber array.
Results
Measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using 2D gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criteria and low dose threshold of 10% of the maximum dose. Median gamma pass rates across all plans and measurement depths were 99.0% (PBS) and 98.3% (DCS), with a minimum gamma pass rate of 88.5% (PBS) and 91.2% (DCS).
Conclusions
The PSQA process has been validated and experimentally verified for DCS‐collimated PBS. Dosimetric agreement between the measured and calculated doses was demonstrated to be similar for DCS‐collimated PBS to that achievable with noncollimated PBS.</description><subject>Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>collimation</subject><subject>dose calculation</subject><subject>dynamic collimation</subject><subject>dynamic collimation system (DCS)</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>pencil beam scanning (PBS)</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Precision Medicine</subject><subject>proton therapy</subject><subject>Proton Therapy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Proton Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>spot scanning</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EoqUg8QQoI0vKtWPXyYgq_qQiOsBs2c6NCHJ-GjtC2XgEnpEnIdACE9Ndjo6-ewg5pTCnAOyiaudUskzskSnjMok5g2yfTAEyHjMOYkKOvH8BgEUi4JBMkjSTkqViStRahxLr8PH27lu0ZVHaaNNrV4Yh0t73na4tRk0R5UOtq9Jq54aRtY1zZaUD5lHbNaGpo_CMnW6HKHSoQzUao9bp2h-Tg0I7jye7OyNP11ePy9t49XBzt7xcxZZRJmJqpMwMR8tyZFQjNWkOVHKZ0YWw0hYC6UILisLQgqUGMw4mT0FCojk3JpmR8613nLPp0QdVld6iGzdg03uVgJRULhIq_1DbNd53WKi2G3_pBkVBfeVUVau-c47o2c7amwrzX_Cn3wjEW-C1dDj8K1L3663wE0_Ngao</recordid><startdate>202409</startdate><enddate>202409</enddate><creator>Bennett, Laura C.</creator><creator>Hyer, Daniel E.</creator><creator>Vu, Justin</creator><creator>Patwardhan, Kaustubh</creator><creator>Erhart, Kevin</creator><creator>Gutierrez, Alonso N.</creator><creator>Pons, Eduardo</creator><creator>Jensen, Eric</creator><creator>Ubau, Manual</creator><creator>Zapata, Julio</creator><creator>Wroe, Andrew</creator><creator>Wake, Karsten</creator><creator>Nelson, Nicholas P.</creator><creator>Culberson, Wesley S.</creator><creator>Smith, Blake R.</creator><creator>Hill, Patrick M.</creator><creator>Flynn, Ryan T.</creator><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202409</creationdate><title>Patient‐specific quality assurance of dynamically‐collimated proton therapy treatment plans</title><author>Bennett, Laura C. ; Hyer, Daniel E. ; Vu, Justin ; Patwardhan, Kaustubh ; Erhart, Kevin ; Gutierrez, Alonso N. ; Pons, Eduardo ; Jensen, Eric ; Ubau, Manual ; Zapata, Julio ; Wroe, Andrew ; Wake, Karsten ; Nelson, Nicholas P. ; Culberson, Wesley S. ; Smith, Blake R. ; Hill, Patrick M. ; Flynn, Ryan T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2125-1b779b4ec2de21ae1b8d017479165c7cf5e16a51e5b1f28be940bd80703a44bb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>collimation</topic><topic>dose calculation</topic><topic>dynamic collimation</topic><topic>dynamic collimation system (DCS)</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>pencil beam scanning (PBS)</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Precision Medicine</topic><topic>proton therapy</topic><topic>Proton Therapy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Proton Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>spot scanning</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Laura C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyer, Daniel E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vu, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patwardhan, Kaustubh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erhart, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutierrez, Alonso N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pons, Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ubau, Manual</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zapata, Julio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wroe, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wake, Karsten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Nicholas P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Culberson, Wesley S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Blake R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Patrick M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flynn, Ryan T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bennett, Laura C.</au><au>Hyer, Daniel E.</au><au>Vu, Justin</au><au>Patwardhan, Kaustubh</au><au>Erhart, Kevin</au><au>Gutierrez, Alonso N.</au><au>Pons, Eduardo</au><au>Jensen, Eric</au><au>Ubau, Manual</au><au>Zapata, Julio</au><au>Wroe, Andrew</au><au>Wake, Karsten</au><au>Nelson, Nicholas P.</au><au>Culberson, Wesley S.</au><au>Smith, Blake R.</au><au>Hill, Patrick M.</au><au>Flynn, Ryan T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patient‐specific quality assurance of dynamically‐collimated proton therapy treatment plans</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2024-09</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>5901</spage><epage>5910</epage><pages>5901-5910</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><abstract>Background
The dynamic collimation system (DCS) provides energy layer‐specific collimation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using two pairs of orthogonal nickel trimmer blades. While excellent measurement‐to‐calculation agreement has been demonstrated for simple cube‐shaped DCS‐trimmed dose distributions, no comparison of measurement and dose calculation has been made for patient‐specific treatment plans.
Purpose
To validate a patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) process for DCS‐trimmed PBS treatment plans and evaluate the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.
Methods
Three intracranial patient cases were considered. Standard uncollimated PBS and DCS‐collimated treatment plans were generated for each patient using the Astroid treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were recalculated in a water phantom and delivered at the Miami Cancer Institute (MCI) using an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) dedicated nozzle system and prototype DCS. Planar dose measurements were acquired at two depths within low‐gradient regions of the target volume using an IBA MatriXX ion chamber array.
Results
Measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using 2D gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criteria and low dose threshold of 10% of the maximum dose. Median gamma pass rates across all plans and measurement depths were 99.0% (PBS) and 98.3% (DCS), with a minimum gamma pass rate of 88.5% (PBS) and 91.2% (DCS).
Conclusions
The PSQA process has been validated and experimentally verified for DCS‐collimated PBS. Dosimetric agreement between the measured and calculated doses was demonstrated to be similar for DCS‐collimated PBS to that achievable with noncollimated PBS.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>38977285</pmid><doi>10.1002/mp.17295</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0094-2405 |
ispartof | Medical physics (Lancaster), 2024-09, Vol.51 (9), p.5901-5910 |
issn | 0094-2405 2473-4209 2473-4209 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3077176317 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Brain Neoplasms - radiotherapy collimation dose calculation dynamic collimation dynamic collimation system (DCS) Humans pencil beam scanning (PBS) Phantoms, Imaging Precision Medicine proton therapy Proton Therapy - instrumentation Proton Therapy - methods Quality Assurance, Health Care Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods spot scanning |
title | Patient‐specific quality assurance of dynamically‐collimated proton therapy treatment plans |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-14T07%3A24%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patient%E2%80%90specific%20quality%20assurance%20of%20dynamically%E2%80%90collimated%20proton%20therapy%20treatment%20plans&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Bennett,%20Laura%20C.&rft.date=2024-09&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=5901&rft.epage=5910&rft.pages=5901-5910&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mp.17295&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3077176317%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3077176317&rft_id=info:pmid/38977285&rfr_iscdi=true |