Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurements of in-air spot size of pencil proton beam for various air gaps in conjunction with a range shifter on a ProteusPLUS PBS dedicated machine and comparison to the proton dose calculation algorithms

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to (i) investigate the impact of various air gaps in conjunction with a range shifter of 7.5 cm water-equivalent-thickness (WET) on in-air spot size of a pencil proton beam at the isocenter and off-axis points, and (ii) compare the treatment planning system (TPS) calculated spot sizes against the measured spot sizes. A scintillation detector has been utilized to measure the in-air spot sizes at the isocenter. The air gap was varied from 0 to 35 cm at an increment of 5 cm. For each air gap, a single spot pencil proton beam of various energies (110–225 MeV) was delivered to the scintillation detector. By mimicking the experimental setup in RayStation TPS, proton dose calculations were performed using pencil beam (RS-PB) and Monte Carlo (RS-MC) dose calculation algorithms. The calculated spot sizes (RS-PB and RS-MC) were then compared against the measured spot sizes. For a comparative purpose, the spot sizes of each measured energy for different air gaps of (5–35 cm) were compared against that of 0 cm air gap. The results of the 5 cm air gap showed an increase in spot size by ≤ 0.6 mm for all energies. For the largest air gap (35 cm) in the current study, the spot size increased by 3.0 mm for the highest energy (225 MeV) and by 9.2 mm for the lowest energy (110 MeV). For the 0 cm air gap, the agreement between the TPS-calculated (RS-PB and RS-MC) and measured spot sizes were within ± 0.1 mm. For the 35 cm air gap, the RS-PB overpredicted spot sizes by 0.3–0.8 mm, whereas the RS-MC computed spot sizes were within ± 0.3 mm of measured spot sizes. In conclusion, spot size increment is dependent on the energy and air gap. The increase in spot size was more pronounced at lower energies ( < 150 MeV) for all air gaps. The comparison between the TPS calculated and measured spot sizes showed that the RS-MC is more accurate (within ± 0.3 mm), whereas the RS-PB overpredicted (up to 0.8 mm) the spot sizes when a range shifter (7.5 cm WET) and large air gaps are encountered in the proton beam path.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pidikiti R, Patel BC, Maynard MR, Dugas JP, Syh J, Sahoo N, Wu HT, Rosen LR (2018) Commissioning of the world's first compact pencil-beam scanning proton therapy system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 19(1):94–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saini J et al (2016) Clinical commissioning of a pencil beam scanning treatment planning system for proton therapy. Int J Part Ther. 3:51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin L, Huang S, Kang M, Hiltunen P, Vanderstraeten R, Lindberg J et al (2017) A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton monte carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 18(2):44–49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Langner UW, Eley JG, Dong L, Langen K (2017) Comparison of multi-institutional Varian ProBeam pencil beam scanning proton beam commissioning data. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 18(3):96–107

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gillin MT, Sahoo N, Bues M, Ciangaru G, Sawakuchi G, Poenisch F, Arjomandy B, Martin C, Titt U, Suzuki K, Smith AR, Zhu XR (2017) Commissioning of the discrete spot scanning proton beam delivery system at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Proton Therapy Center, Houston. Med Phys 37(1):154–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sawakuchi GO, Titt U, Mirkovic D, Mohan R (2008) Density heterogeneities and the influence of multiple Coulomb and nuclear scatterings on the Bragg peak distal edge of proton therapy beams. Phys Med Biol. 53(17):4605–4619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Titt U, Mirkovic D, Sawakuchi GO, Perles LA, Newhauser WD, Taddei PJ, Mohan R (2010) Adjustment of the lateral and longitudinal size of scanned proton beam spots using a pre-absorber to optimize penumbrae and delivery efficiency. Phys Med Biol. 55(23):7097–7106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gottschalk B, Koehler AM et al (1993) Multiple Coulomb scattering of 160 MeV protons. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect B 74(4):467–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shirey RJ, Wu HT (2018) Quantifying the effect of air gap, depth, and range shifter thickness on TPS dosimetric accuracy in superficial PBS proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 19(1):164–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Both S, Shen J, Kirk M, Lin L, Tang S, Alonso-Basanta M, Lustig R, Lin H, Deville C, Hill-Kayser C, Tochner Z, McDonough J (2014) Development and clinical implementation of a universal bolus to maintain spot size during delivery of base of skull pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 90(1):79–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin L, Ainsley CG, Solberg TD, McDonough JE (2014) Experimental characterization of two-dimensional spot profiles for two proton pencil beam scanning nozzles. Phys Med Biol. 59(2):493–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rana S, Bennouna J et al (2019) Development and long-term stability of a comprehensive daily QA program for a modern pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy delivery system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 20(4):29–44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Saini J, Traneus E, Maes D, Regmi R, Bowen SR, Bloch C, Wong T (2018) Advanced Proton Beam Dosimetry Part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 7(2):171–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Russo S, Mirandola A, Molinelli S, Mastella E, Vai A, Magro G, Mairani A, Boi D, Donetti M, Ciocca M (2017) Characterization of a commercial scintillation detector for 2-D dosimetry in scanned proton and carbon ion beams. Phys Med. 34:48–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kraan AC, Depauw N, Clasie B, Giunta M, Madden T, Kooy HM (2018) Effects of spot parameters in pencil beam scanning treatment planning. Med Phys. 45(1):60–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grassberger C, Dowdell S, Lomax A, Sharp G, Shackleford J, Choi N, Willers H, Paganetti H (2013) Motion interplay as a function of patient parameters and spot size in spot scanning proton therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 86(2):380–386

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study does not include any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, 8900 N Kendall Drive, Miami, FL, 33176, USA

    Suresh Rana

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Suresh Rana

  3. Department of Physics, School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

    Suresh Rana & E. James Jebaseelan Samuel

Authors
  1. Suresh Rana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. James Jebaseelan Samuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suresh Rana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Suresh Rana and E. James Jebaseelan Samuel declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rana, S., Samuel, E.J.J. Measurements of in-air spot size of pencil proton beam for various air gaps in conjunction with a range shifter on a ProteusPLUS PBS dedicated machine and comparison to the proton dose calculation algorithms. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 42, 853–862 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00772-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00772-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation