Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Poenisch, Falk.
To perform a planned interim analysis of acute (within 12 months) and late (after 12 months) toxicities and cosmetic outcomes after proton accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI).
The capabilities of the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) for proton therapy treatment planning are described. Various steps involved in the planning process to produce a 3-dimensional (3D) dose distribution both for the passive scattering and pencil beam scanning proton beam therapy are outlined. Mitigation of range and setup uncertainties through robust optimization is discussed. Use of verification plans for patient treatment field dosimetry quality assurance (QA) is presented. Limitations of the Eclipse TPS and future developments are discussed.
Purpose: To determine the patient throughput and the overall efficiency of the spot scanning system by analyzing treatment time, equipment availability, and maximum daily capacity for the current spot scanning port at Proton Therapy Center Houston and to assess the daily throughput capacity for a hypothetical spot scanning proton therapy center. Methods: At their proton therapy center, the authors have been recording in an electronic medical record system all treatment data, including disease site, number of fields, number of fractions, delivered dose, energy, range, number of spots, and number of layers for every treatment field. The authors analyzed delivery system downtimes that had been recorded for every equipment failure and associated incidents. These data were used to evaluate the patient census, patient distribution as a function of the number of fields and total target volume, and equipment clinical availability. The duration of each treatment session from patient walk-in to patient walk-out of the spot scanning treatment room was measured for 64 patients with head and neck, central nervous system, thoracic, and genitourinary cancers. The authors retrieved data for total target volume and the numbers of layers and spots for all fields from treatment plans for a total of 271 patients (including the above 64 patients). A sensitivity analysis of daily throughput capacity was performed by varying seven parameters in a throughput capacity model. Results: The mean monthly equipment clinical availability for the spot scanning port in April 2012–March 2015 was 98.5%. Approximately 1500 patients had received spot scanning proton therapy as of March 2015. The major disease sites treated in September 2012–August 2014 were the genitourinary system (34%), head and neck (30%), central nervous system (21%), and thorax (14%), with other sites accounting for the remaining 1%. Spot scanning beam delivery time increased with total target volume and accounted for approximately 30%–40% of total treatment time for the total target volumes exceeding 200 cm{sup 3}, which was the case for more than 80% of the patients in this study. When total treatment time was modeled as a function of the number of fields and total target volume, the model overestimated total treatment time by 12% on average, with a standard deviation of 32%. A sensitivity analysis of throughput capacity for a hypothetical four-room spot scanning proton therapy center identified several priority items for improvements in throughput capacity, including operation time, beam delivery time, and patient immobilization and setup time. Conclusions: The spot scanning port at our proton therapy center has operated at a high performance level and has been used to treat a large number of complex cases. Further improvements in efficiency may be feasible in the areas of facility operation, beam delivery, patient immobilization and setup, and optimization of treatment scheduling.
Purpose: To develop a new robust optimization strategy for intensity-modulated proton therapy as an important step in translating robust proton treatment planning from research to clinical applications. Methods: In selective robust optimization, a worst-case-based robust optimization algorithm is extended, and terms of the objective function are selectively computed from either the worst-case dose or the nominal dose. Two lung cancer cases and one head and neck cancer case were used to demonstrate the practical significance of the proposed robust planning strategy. The lung cancer cases had minimal tumor motion less than 5 mm, and, for the demonstration of the methodology, are assumed to be static. Results: Selective robust optimization achieved robust clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and at the same time increased nominal planning target volume coverage to 95.8%, compared to the 84.6% coverage achieved with CTV-based robust optimization in one of the lung cases. In the other lung case, the maximum dose in selective robust optimization was lowered from a dose of 131.3% in the CTV-based robust optimization to 113.6%. Selective robust optimization provided robust CTV coverage in the head and neck case, and at the same time improved controls over isodose distribution so that clinical requirements may be readily met. Conclusions: Selective robust optimization may provide the flexibility and capability necessary for meeting various clinical requirements in addition to achieving the required plan robustness in practical proton treatment planning settings.
Purpose: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can improve dose conformality and better spare normal tissue over passive scattering techniques, but range uncertainties complicate its use, particularly for moving targets. We report our early experience with IMPT for thoracic malignancies in terms of motion analysis and management, plan optimization and robustness, and quality assurance. Methods and Materials: Thirty-four consecutive patients with lung/mediastinal cancers received IMPT to a median 66 Gy(relative biological equivalence [RBE]). All patients were able to undergo definitive radiation therapy. IMPT was used when the treating physician judged that IMPT conferred a dosimetric advantage; all patients had minimal tumor motion (<5 mm) and underwent individualized tumor-motion dose-uncertainty analysis and 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomographic (CT)-based treatment simulation and motion analysis. Plan robustness was optimized by using a worst-case scenario method. All patients had 4D CT repeated simulation during treatment. Results: IMPT produced lower mean lung dose (MLD), lung V{sub 5} and V{sub 20}, heart V{sub 40}, and esophageal V{sub 60} than did IMRT (P<.05) and lower MLD, lung V{sub 20}, and esophageal V{sub 60} than did passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) (P<.05). D{sub 5} to the gross tumor volume and clinical target volume was higher with IMPT than with intensity modulated radiation therapy or PSPT (P<.05). All cases were analyzed for beam-angle-specific motion, water-equivalent thickness, and robustness. Beam angles were chosen to minimize the effect of respiratory motion and avoid previously treated regions, and the maximum deviation from the nominal dose-volume histogram values was kept at <5% for the target dose and met the normal tissue constraints under a worst-case scenario. Patient-specific quality assurance measurements showed that a median 99% (range, 95% to 100%) of the pixels met the 3% dose/3 mm distance criteria for the γ index. Adaptive replanning was used for 9 patients (26.5%). Conclusions: IMPT using 4D CT-based planning, motion management, and optimization was implemented successfully and met our quality assurance parameters for treating challenging thoracic cancers.
Purpose: To describe treatment planning techniques and early clinical outcomes in patients treated with spot scanning proton therapy for chordoma or chondrosarcoma of the skull base. Methods and Materials: From June 2010 through August 2011, 15 patients were treated with spot scanning proton therapy for chordoma (n=10) or chondrosarcoma (n=5) at a single institution. Toxicity was prospectively evaluated and scored weekly and at all follow-up visits according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. Treatment planning techniques and dosimetric data were recorded and compared with those of passive scattering plans created with clinically applicable dose constraints. Results: Ten patients were treated with single-field-optimized scanning beam plans and 5 with multifield-optimized intensity modulated proton therapy. All but 2 patients received a simultaneous integrated boost as well. The mean prescribed radiation doses were 69.8 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]; range, 68-70 Gy [RBE]) for chordoma and 68.4 Gy (RBE) (range, 66-70) for chondrosarcoma. In comparison with passive scattering plans, spot scanning plans demonstrated improved high-dose conformality and sparing of temporal lobes and brainstem. Clinically, the most common acute toxicities included fatigue (grade 2 for 2 patients, grade 1 for 8 patients) and nausea (grade 2 for 2 patients, grade 1 for 6 patients). No toxicities of grades 3 to 5 were recorded. At a median follow-up time of 27 months (range, 13-42 months), 1 patient had experienced local recurrence and a second developed distant metastatic disease. Two patients had magnetic resonance imaging-documented temporal lobe changes, and a third patient developed facial numbness. No other subacute or late effects were recorded. Conclusions: In comparison to passive scattering, treatment plans for spot scanning proton therapy displayed improved high-dose conformality. Clinically, the treatment was well tolerated, and with short-term follow-up, disease control rates and toxicity profiles were favorable.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the use of HPlusQA, spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT) dose calculation software developed at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, as second-check dose calculation software for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). The authors also showed how HPlusQA can be used within the current PSQA framework.Methods: The authors compared the dose calculations of HPlusQA and the Eclipse treatment planning system with 106 planar dose measurements made as part of PSQA. To determine the relative performance and the degree of correlation between HPlusQA and Eclipse, the authors compared calculated with measured point doses. Then, to determine how well HPlusQA can predict when the comparisons between Eclipse calculations and the measured dose will exceed tolerance levels, the authors compared gamma index scores for HPlusQA versus Eclipse with those of measured doses versus Eclipse. The authors introduce the αβγ transformation as a way to more easily compare gamma scores.Results: The authors compared measured and calculated dose planes using the relative depth, z/R × 100%, where z is the depth of the measurement and R is the proton beam range. For relative depths than less than 80%, both Eclipse and HPlusQA calculations were within 2 cGy of dose measurements on average. When the relative depth was greater than 80%, the agreement between the calculations and measurements fell to 4 cGy. For relative depths less than 10%, the Eclipse and HPlusQA dose discrepancies showed a negative correlation, −0.21. Otherwise, the correlation between the dose discrepancies was positive and as large as 0.6. For the dose planes in this study, HPlusQA correctly predicted when Eclipse had and had not calculated the dose to within tolerance 92% and 79% of the time, respectively. In 4 of 106 cases, HPlusQA failed to predict when the comparison between measurement and Eclipse's calculation had exceeded the tolerance levels of 3% for dose and 3 mm for distance-to-agreement.Conclusions: The authors found HPlusQA to be reasonably effective (79%± 10%) in determining when the comparison between measured dose planes and the dose planes calculated by the Eclipse treatment planning system had exceeded the acceptable tolerance levels. When used as described in this study, HPlusQA can reduce the need for patient specific quality assurance measurements by 64%. The authors believe that the use of HPlusQA as a dose calculation second check can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the QA process.
Purpose: Photon therapy has been reported to induce resets of implanted cardiac devices, but the clinical sequelae of treating patients with such devices with proton beam therapy (PBT) are not well known. We reviewed the incidence of device malfunctions among patients undergoing PBT. Methods and Materials: From March 2009 through July 2012, 42 patients with implanted cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED; 28 pacemakers and 14 cardioverter-defibrillators) underwent 42 courses of PBT for thoracic (23, 55%), prostate (15, 36%), liver (3, 7%), or base of skull (1, 2%) tumors at a single institution. The median prescribed dose was 74 Gy (relative biological effectiveness; range 46.8-87.5 Gy), and the median distance from the treatment field to the CIED was 10 cm (range 0.8-40 cm). Maximum proton and neutron doses were estimated for each treatment course. All CIEDs were checked before radiation delivery and monitored throughout treatment. Results: Median estimated peak proton and neutron doses to the CIED in all patients were 0.8 Gy (range 0.13-21 Gy) and 346 Sv (range 11-1100 mSv). Six CIED malfunctions occurred in 5 patients (2 pacemakers and 3 defibrillators). Five of these malfunctions were CIED resets, and 1 patient with a defibrillator (in a patient with a liver tumor) had an elective replacement indicator after therapy that was not influenced by radiation. The mean distance from the proton beam to the CIED among devices that reset was 7.0 cm (range 0.9-8 cm), and the mean maximum neutron dose was 655 mSv (range 330-1100 mSv). All resets occurred in patients receiving thoracic PBT and were corrected without clinical incident. The generator for the defibrillator with the elective replacement indicator message was replaced uneventfully after treatment. Conclusions: The incidence of CIED resets was about 20% among patients receiving PBT to the thorax. We recommend that PBT be avoided in pacing-dependent patients and that patients with any type of CIED receiving thoracic PBT be followed closely.
Purpose: The measurement of percentage depth-dose (PDD) distributions for the quality assurance of clinical proton beams is most commonly performed with a computerized water tank dosimetry system with ionization chamber, commonly referred to as water tank. Although the accuracy and reproducibility of this method is well established, it can be time-consuming if a large number of measurements are required. In this work the authors evaluate the linearity, reproducibility, sensitivity to field size, accuracy, and time-savings of another system: the Zebra, a multilayer ionization chamber system.Methods: The Zebra, consisting of 180 parallel-plate ionization chambers with 2 mm resolution, was used to measure depth-dose distributions. The measurements were performed for scattered and scanned proton pencil beams of multiple energies delivered by the Hitachi PROBEAT synchrotron-based delivery system. For scattered beams, the Zebra-measured depth-dose distributions were compared with those measured with the water tank. The principal descriptors extracted for comparisons were: range, the depth of the distal 90% dose; spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) length, the region between the proximal 95% and distal 90% dose; and distal-dose fall off (DDF), the region between the distal 80% and 20% dose. For scanned beams, the Zebra-measured ranges were compared with those acquired using a Bragg peak chamber during commissioning.Results: The Zebra demonstrated better than 1% reproducibility and monitor unit linearity. The response of the Zebra was found to be sensitive to radiation field sizes greater than 12.5 × 12.5 cm; hence, the measurements used to determine accuracy were performed using a field size of 10 × 10 cm. For the scattered proton beams, PDD distributions showed 1.5% agreement within the SOBP, and 3.8% outside. Range values agreed within −0.1 ± 0.4 mm, with a maximum deviation of 1.2 mm. SOBP length values agreed within 0 ± 2 mm, with a maximum deviation of 6 mm. DDF values agreed within 0.3 ± 0.1 mm, with a maximum deviation of 0.6 mm. For the scanned proton pencil beams, Zebra and Bragg peak chamber range values demonstrated agreement of 0.0 ± 0.3 mm with a maximum deviation of 1.3 mm. The setup and measurement time for all Zebra measurements was 3 and 20 times less, respectively, compared to the water tank measurements.Conclusions: Our investigation shows that the Zebra can be useful not only for fast but also for accurate measurements of the depth-dose distributions of both scattered and scanned proton beams. The analysis of a large set of measurements shows that the commonly assessed beam quality parameters obtained with the Zebra are within the acceptable variations specified by the manufacturer for our delivery system.
Purpose: The purpose of this work was to assess the monitor unit (MU) values and position accuracy of spot scanning proton beams as recorded by the daily treatment logs of the treatment control system, and furthermore establish the feasibility of using the delivered spot positions and MU values to calculate and evaluate delivered doses to patients. Methods: To validate the accuracy of the recorded spot positions, the authors generated and executed a test treatment plan containing nine spot positions, to which the authors delivered ten MU each. The spot positions were measured with radiographic films and Matrixx 2D ion-chambers array placed at the isocenter plane and compared for displacements from the planned and recorded positions. Treatment logs for 14 patients were then used to determine the spot MU values and position accuracy of the scanning proton beam delivery system. Univariate analysis was used to detect any systematic error or large variation between patients, treatment dates, proton energies, gantry angles, and planned spot positions. The recorded patient spot positions and MU values were then used to replace the spot positions and MU values in the plan, and the treatment planning system was used to calculate the delivered doses to patients. The results were compared with the treatment plan. Results: Within a treatment session, spot positions were reproducible within {+-}0.2 mm. The spot positions measured by film agreed with the planned positions within {+-}1 mm and with the recorded positions within {+-}0.5 mm. The maximum day-to-day variation for any given spot position was within {+-}1 mm. For all 14 patients, with {approx}1 500 000 spots recorded, the total MU accuracy was within 0.1% of the planned MU values, the mean (x, y) spot displacement from the planned value was (-0.03 mm, -0.01 mm), the maximum (x, y) displacement was (1.68 mm, 2.27 mm), and the (x, y) standard deviation was (0.26 mm, 0.42 mm). The maximum dose difference between calculated dose to the patient based on the plan and recorded data was within 2%. Conclusions: The authors have shown that the treatment log file in a spot scanning proton beam delivery system is precise enough to serve as a quality assurance tool to monitor variation in spot position and MU value, as well as the delivered dose uncertainty from the treatment delivery system. The analysis tool developed here could be useful for assessing spot position uncertainty and thus dose uncertainty for any patient receiving spot scanning proton beam therapy.
Purpose: Planar integral spot dose (PISD) of proton pencil beam spots (PPBSs) is a required input parameter for beam modeling in some treatment planning systems used in proton therapy clinics. The measurement of PISD by using commercially available large area ionization chambers, like the PTW Bragg peak chamber (BPC), can have large uncertainties due to the size limitation of these chambers. This paper reports the results of our study of a novel method to determine PISD values from the measured lateral dose profiles and peak dose of the PPBS. Methods: The PISDs of 72.5, 89.6, 146.9, 181.1, and 221.8 MeV energy PPBSs were determined by area integration of their planar dose distributions at different depths in water. The lateral relative dose profiles of the PPBSs at selected depths were measured by using small volume ion chambers and were investigated for their angular anisotropies using Kodak XV films. The peak spot dose along the beam's central axis (D{sub 0}) was determined by placing a small volume ion chamber at the center of a broad field created by the superposition of spots at different locations. This method allows eliminating positioning uncertainties and the detector size effect that could occur when measuring it in single PPBS. The PISD was then calculated by integrating the measured lateral relative dose profiles for two different upper limits of integration and then multiplying it with corresponding D{sub 0}. The first limit of integration was set to radius of the BPC, namely 4.08 cm, giving PISD{sub RBPC}. The second limit was set to a value of the radial distance where the profile dose falls below 0.1% of the peak giving the PISD{sub full}. The calculated values of PISD{sub RBPC} obtained from area integration method were compared with the BPC measured values. Long tail dose correction factors (LTDCFs) were determined from the ratio of PISD{sub full}/PISD{sub RBPC} at different depths for PPBSs of different energies. Results: The spot profiles were found to have angular anisotropy. This anisotropy in PPBS dose distribution could be accounted in a reasonable approximate manner by taking the average of PISD values obtained using the in-line and cross-line profiles. The PISD{sub RBPC} values fall within 3.5% of those measured by BPC. Due to inherent dosimetry challenges associated with PPBS dosimetry, which can lead to large experimental uncertainties, such an agreement is considered to be satisfactory for validation purposes. The PISD{sub full} values show differences ranging from 1 to 11% from BPC measured values, which are mainly due to the size limitation of the BPC to account for the dose in the long tail regions of the spots extending beyond its 4.08 cm radius. The dose in long tail regions occur both for high energy beams such as 221.8 MeV PPBS due to the contributions of nuclear interactions products in the medium, and for low energy PPBS because of their larger spot sizes. The calculated LTDCF values agree within 1% with those determined by the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Conclusions: The area integration method to compute the PISD from PPBS lateral dose profiles is found to be useful both to determine the correction factors for the values measured by the BPC and to validate the results from MC simulations.
Purpose: To describe our experiences with patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for patients with prostate cancer receiving spot scanning proton therapy (SSPT) using single-field uniform dose (SFUD). Methods and Materials: The first group of 249 patients with prostate cancer treated with SSPT using SFUD was included in this work. The scanning-beam planning target volume and number of monitor units were recorded and checked for consistency. Patient-specific dosimetric measurements were performed, including the point dose for each plan, depth doses, and two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution in the planes perpendicular to the incident beam direction for each field at multiple depths. The {gamma}-index with 3% dose or 3-mm distance agreement criteria was used to evaluate the 2D dose distributions. Results: We observed a linear relationship between the number of monitor units and scanning-beam planning target volume. The difference between the measured and calculated point doses (mean {+-} SD) was 0.0% {+-} 0.7% (range, -2.9% to 1.8%). In general, the depth doses exhibited good agreement except at the distal end of the spread-out Bragg peak. The pass rate of {gamma}-index (mean {+-} SD) for 2D dose comparison was 96.2% {+-} 2.6% (range, 90-100%). Discrepancies between the measured and calculated dose distributions primarily resulted from the limitation of the model used by the treatment planning system. Conclusions: We have established a patient-specific QA program for prostate cancer patients receiving SSPT using SFUD.