Shortening delivery times for intensity-modulated proton therapy by reducing the number of proton spots: an experimental verification.

Delivery times of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can be shortened by reducing the number of spots in the treatment plan, but this may affect clinical plan delivery. Here, we assess the experimental deliverability, accuracy and time reduction of spot-reduced treatment planning for a clinical case, as well as its robustness. For a single head-and-neck cancer patient, a spot-reduced plan was generated and compared with the conventional clinical plan. The number of proton spots was reduced using the iterative 'pencil beam resampling' technique. This involves repeated inverse optimization, while adding in each iteration a small sample of randomly selected spots and subsequently excluding low-weighted spots until plan quality deteriorates. Field setup was identical for both plans and comparable dosimetric quality was a prerequisite. Both IMPT plans were delivered on PSI Gantry 2 and measured in water, while delivery log-files were used to extract delivery times and reconstruct the delivered dose via Monte-Carlo dose calculations. In addition, robustness simulations were performed to assess sensitivity to machine inaccuracies and errors in patient setup and proton range. The number of spots was reduced by 96% (from 33 855 to 1510 in total) without compromising plan quality. The spot-reduced plan was deliverable on our gantry in standard clinical mode and resulted in average delivery times per field being shortened by 46% (from 51.2 to 27.6 s). For both plans, differences between measured and calculated dose were within clinical tolerance for patient-specific verifications and Monte-Carlo dose reconstructions were in accordance with clinical experience. The spot-reduced plan was slightly more sensitive to machine inaccuracies, but more robust against setup and range errors. In conclusion, for an example head-and-neck case, spot-reduced IMPT planning provided a deliverable treatment plan and enabled considerable shortening of the delivery time (∼50%) without compromising plan quality or delivery accuracy, and without substantially affecting robustness.

Evaluation of the Machine Performance Check application for TrueBeam Linac.

BACKGROUND: Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an application to verify geometry and beam performances of TrueBeam Linacs, through automated checks based on their kV-MV imaging systems. In this study, preliminary tests with MPC were analyzed using all photon beam energies of our TrueBeam, comparing whenever possible with external independent checks. METHODS: Data acquisition comprises a series of 39 images (12 with kV and 27 with MV detector) acquired at predefined positions without and with the IsoCal phantom in the beam, and with particular MLC pattern settings. MPC performs geometric and dosimetric checks. The geometric checks intend to test the treatment isocenter size and its coincidence with imaging devices, the positioning accuracy of the imaging systems, the collimator, the gantry, the jaws, the MLC leaves and the couch position. The dosimetric checks: refer to a reference MV image and give the beam output, uniformity and center change relative to the reference. MPC data were acquired during 10 repetitions on different consecutive days. Alternative independent checks were performed. Geometric: routine mechanical tests, Winston-Lutz test for treatment isocenter radius. Dosimetric: the 2D array StarCheck (PTW) was used just after the MPC data acquisition. RESULTS: Results were analyzed for 6, 10, 15 MV flattened, and 6, 10 MV FFF beams. Geometric checks: treatment isocenter was between 0.31 ± 0.01 mm and 0.42 ± 0.02 mm with MPC, compared to 0.27 ± 0.01 mm averaged on all energies with the Winston-Lutz test. Coincidence of kV and MV imaging isocenters was within 0.36 ± 0.0 and 0.43 ± 0.06 mm, respectively (0.4 ± 0.1 mm with external tests). Positioning accuracy of MLC was within 0.5 mm; accuracy of jaws was 0.04 ± 0.02, 0.10 ± 0.05, -1.01 ± 0.03, 0.92 ± 0.04 mm for X1, X2, Y1, Y2 jaws, respectively, with MPC. Dosimetric tests: the output stability relative to the baseline was in average 0.15 ± 0.07% for MPC to compare with 0.3 ± 0.2% with the independent measurement. CONCLUSIONS: MPC proved to be a reliable, fast and easy to use method for checking the machine performances on both geometric and dosimetric aspects.

Monte Carlo simulation of TrueBeam flattening-filter-free beams using varian phase-space files: comparison with experimental data.

PURPOSE: Phase-space files for Monte Carlo simulation of the Varian TrueBeam beams have been made available by Varian. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the distributed phase-space files for flattening filter free (FFF) beams, against experimental measurements from ten TrueBeam Linacs. METHODS: The phase-space files have been used as input in PRIMO, a recently released Monte Carlo program based on the PENELOPE code. Simulations of 6 and 10 MV FFF were computed in a virtual water phantom for field sizes 3 × 3, 6 × 6, and 10 × 10 cm(2) using 1 × 1 × 1 mm(3) voxels and for 20 × 20 and 40 × 40 cm(2) with 2 × 2 × 2 mm(3) voxels. The particles contained in the initial phase-space files were transported downstream to a plane just above the phantom surface, where a subsequent phase-space file was tallied. Particles were transported downstream this second phase-space file to the water phantom. Experimental data consisted of depth doses and profiles at five different depths acquired at SSD = 100 cm (seven datasets) and SSD = 90 cm (three datasets). Simulations and experimental data were compared in terms of dose difference. Gamma analysis was also performed using 1%, 1 mm and 2%, 2 mm criteria of dose-difference and distance-to-agreement, respectively. Additionally, the parameters characterizing the dose profiles of unflattened beams were evaluated for both measurements and simulations. RESULTS: Analysis of depth dose curves showed that dose differences increased with increasing field size and depth; this effect might be partly motivated due to an underestimation of the primary beam energy used to compute the phase-space files. Average dose differences reached 1% for the largest field size. Lateral profiles presented dose differences well within 1% for fields up to 20 × 20 cm(2), while the discrepancy increased toward 2% in the 40 × 40 cm(2) cases. Gamma analysis resulted in an agreement of 100% when a 2%, 2 mm criterion was used, with the only exception of the 40 × 40 cm(2) field (∼95% agreement). With the more stringent criteria of 1%, 1 mm, the agreement reduced to almost 95% for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm(2), worse for larger fields. Unflatness and slope FFF-specific parameters are in line with the possible energy underestimation of the simulated results relative to experimental data. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between Monte Carlo simulations and experimental data proved that the evaluated Varian phase-space files for FFF beams from TrueBeam can be used as radiation sources for accurate Monte Carlo dose estimation, especially for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm(2), that is the range of field sizes mostly used in combination to the FFF, high dose rate beams.