Advertisement

Quantifying lateral penumbra advantages of collimated spot-scanning beam for intensity-modulated proton therapy

  • Chun-Bo Liu
  • Yun-Tao Song
  • Hong-Dong Liu
  • Hai-Zhou Xue
  • Han-Sheng FengEmail author
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is becoming essential for proton therapy and is under rapid development. However, for IMPT, the lateral penumbra of the spot-scanning proton beam is still an urgent issue to be solved. Patient-specific block collimators (PSBCs), which can block unnecessary doses, play a crucial role in passive scattering delivery technology but are rarely used in spot scanning. One objective of this study is to investigate the lateral penumbra variations of intensity-modulated spot scanning with and without a PSBC. For fields with varying degrees of sharpness and at varying depths in a water phantom, the lateral penumbral widths were calculated using a Monte Carlo-based dose engine from RayStation 6. The results suggest that the lateral penumbral widths can be reduced by more than 30% for uniform target volumes, regardless of whether a range-shifter is used, and that the maximum dose beyond the field edges can be reduced significantly. The results of patient cases show that the doses in organs-at-risk near the edge of the target volume decrease if a PSBC is implemented. This study demonstrates that intensity-modulated spot scanning with a PSBC can effectively reduce the lateral penumbra and block unnecessary doses and is therefore promising for clinical applications in spot-scanning proton therapy.

Keywords

Lateral penumbra Patient-specific block collimator Monte Carlo Intensity-modulated proton therapy 

References

  1. 1.
    S.W. Wu, C.J. Tung, C.C. Lee et al., Impact of the material composition on proton range variation—a Monte Carlo study. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 116, 199–202 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Clasie, N. Depauw, M. Fransen et al., Golden beam data for proton pencil-beam scanning. Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 1147–1158 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/5/1147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Paganetti, Proton Therapy Physics (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2012), p. 61Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Mirandola, S. Molinelli, F.G. Vilches et al., Dosimetric commissioning and quality assurance of scanned ion beams at the Italian National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy. Med. Phys. 42, 5287–5300 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4928397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Li, L. Zhang, L. Dong et al., A CT-based software tool for evaluating compensator quality in passively scattered proton therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 6759–6771 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/22/010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.R. Mendez, J. Perl, J. Schumann et al., Improved efficiency in Monte Carlo simulation for passive-scattering proton therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 60, 5019–5035 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/13/5019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Zheng, J. Fontenot, P. Taddei et al., Monte Carlo simulations of neutron spectral fluence, radiation weighting factor and ambient dose equivalent for a passively scattered proton therapy unit. Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 187–201 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/1/013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.C. Polf, W.D. Newhauser, Calculations of neutron dose equivalent exposures from range-modulated proton therapy beams. Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 3859–3873 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/16/014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.C. Polf, W.D. Newhauser, U. Titt, Patient neutron dose equivalent exposures outside of the proton therapy treatment field. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 115, 154–158 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nci264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.E. Hyer, P.M. Hill, D. Wang et al., A dynamic collimation system for penumbra reduction in spot-scanning proton therapy: proof of concept. Med. Phys. 41, 91701 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4837155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Prusator, S. Ahmad, Y. Chen, TOPAS Simulation of the Mevion S250 compact proton therapy unit. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 18, 88–95 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Safai, T. Bortfeld, M. Engelsman, Comparison between the lateral penumbra of a collimated double-scattered beam and uncollimated scanning beam in proton radiotherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 1729–1750 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/6/016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Winterhalter, A. Lomax, D. Oxley et al., A study of lateral fall-off (penumbra) optimisation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 63, 25022 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aaa2ad CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Karamysheva, S. Gurskiy, O. Karamyshev, et al., Compact superconduction cyclotron SC200 for proton therapy. in Proceedings of the 21st international conference on cyclotrons and their applications (CYC’16). 2016. pp. 208–211Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Yasui, T. Toshito, C. Omachi et al., Evaluation of dosimetric advantages of using patient-specific aperture system with intensity-modulated proton therapy for the shallow depth tumor. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 19, 132–137 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Bäumer, M. Janson, B. Timmermann, J. Wulff, Collimated proton pencil-beam scanning for superficial targets: impact of the order of range shifter and aperture. Phys. Med. Biol. 63, 85020 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aab79c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.W. Langner, J.G. Eley, L. Dong et al., Comparison of multi-institutional Varian ProBeam pencil beam scanning proton beam commissioning data. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 18, 96–107 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Shirey, H.T. Wu, 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, 164–173 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.J. Berger, J.S. Coursey, M.A. Zucker et al., Stopping-Power & Range Tables for Electrons, Protons, and Helium Ions. NIST Standard Reference Database 124 (2017). https://dx.doi.org/10.18434/T4NC7P
  20. 20.
    RaySearch Laboratories, RayStation 6 Reference Manual (Stockholm, RaySearch, 2016), pp. 155–158Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Saini, D. Maes, A. Egan, S.R. Bowen, S. St James, M. Janson et al., Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning Monte-Carlo dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations. Phys. Med. Biol. 62, 7659–7681 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa82a5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    F.C. Charlwood, A.H. Aitkenhead, R.I. Mackay, A Monte Carlo study on the collimation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy beams. Med. Phys. 43, 1462–1472 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4941957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    B.R. Smith, D.E. Hyer, P.M. Hill, W.S. Culberson, Secondary neutron dose from a dynamic collimation system during intracranial pencil beam scanning proton therapy: a Monte Carlo investigation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 103, 241–250 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press), Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Nuclear Society and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chun-Bo Liu
    • 1
  • Yun-Tao Song
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hong-Dong Liu
    • 1
  • Hai-Zhou Xue
    • 3
  • Han-Sheng Feng
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina
  2. 2.Institute of Plasma Physics, Hefei Institutes of Physical ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesHefeiChina
  3. 3.Hefei CAS Ion Medical and Technical Devices Co., LtdHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations