The implementation of an image-guided system at a proton therapy center facility.

PURPOSE: Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) proton therapy has similar requirements on patient alignment to within 1 mm and 1-degree accuracy as photon radiosurgery. This study describes general workflow, acceptance, and commissioning test procedures and their respective results for an independent robotic arm used for Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT) for a Proton Therapy System. METHODS: The system is equipped with kV-imaging techniques capable of orthogonal and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging modalities mounted on an independent robotic arm gantry attached to the ceiling. The imaging system is capable of 360-degree rotation around patients to produce CBCT and kilovoltage orthogonal images. The imaging hardware is controlled by Ehmet Health XIS software, and MIM Software handles the image fusion and registration to an acceptable accuracy of ≤1-mm shifts for patients' alignment. The system was tested according to the requirements outlined in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG) 142 and TG 179. The system tests included (1) safety, functionality, and connectivity, (2) mechanical testing, (3) image quality, (4) image registration, and (5) imaging dose. Additional tests included imaging gantry isocentricity with a laser tracker and collision-avoiding system checks. RESULTS: The orthogonal and volumetric imaging are comparable in quality to other commercially available On-Board Imagers (OBI) systems. The resulting spatial resolution values were 1.8-, 0.8-, and 0.5-Line Pairs per Millimeter (lp/mm) for orthogonal, full-fan CBCT, and half-fan CBCT, respectively. The image registration is accurate to within 1 mm and 1 degree. The data shows consistent imaging-guided system performance with standard deviations in x, y, and z of 0.7, 0.8, and 0.7 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The system provides excellent image quality and performance, which can be used for IGRT. The proven accuracy of the x-ray imaging and positioning system at McLaren Proton Therapy Center (MPTC) is 1 mm, making it suitable for proton therapy.

Technical Note: Use of commercial multilayer Faraday cup for offline daily beam range verification at the McLaren Proton Therapy Center.

PURPOSE: Daily verification of the proton beam range in proton radiation therapy is a vital part of the quality assurance (QA) program. The objective of this work is to study the use of a multilayer Faraday cup (MLFC) to perform a quick and precise daily range verification of proton beams produced by a synchrotron. METHODS: Proton beam depth dose measurements were performed at room iso-center in water using PTW water tank and Bragg Peak ion chamber. The IBA Giraffe, calibrated against the water tank data, was used to measure the water equivalent thickness (WET) of the sample copper plates. The WET measurements provided the range calibration factors for the MLFC. To establish a baseline for in room measurements, range measurements for energies from 70 to 250 MeV in steps of 10 MeV were performed using the Pyramid MLFC at room iso-center. For the daily range verification measurements, the MLFC is permanently placed at the end of the beam line, inside the accelerator vault. The daily range constancy is performed for five representative beam energies; namely 70, 100, 150, 200, and 250 MeV. Data collected over a period of more than 100 days are analyzed and presented. RESULTS: The measured WET values of the copper plates increased with increasing energy. The centroid channel number in the MLFC where the protons stop, was converted to depth in water and compared to the depth of the distal 80% (d80) obtained from the water tank measurements. The depths agreed to within 2 mm, with the maximum deviation of 1.97 mm observed for 250 MeV beam. The daily variation in the ranges measured by the MLFC was within ±0.5 mm. The total time to verify five proton beam ranges varies between 4 and 5 min. CONCLUSION: Based on the result of our measurements, the MLFC can be used for a daily range constancy check with submillimeter accuracy. It is a quick and simple method to perform range constancy verification on a daily basis.

Assessment of radiation-induced second cancer risks in proton therapy and IMRT for organs inside the primary radiation field.

There is clinical evidence that second malignancies in radiation therapy occur mainly within the beam path, i.e. in the medium or high-dose region. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk for developing a radiation-induced tumor within the treated volume and to compare this risk for proton therapy and intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT). Instead of using data for specific patients we have created a representative scenario. Fully contoured age- and gender-specific whole body phantoms (4 year and 14 year old) were uploaded into a treatment planning system and tumor volumes were contoured based on patients treated for optic glioma and vertebral body Ewing's sarcoma. Treatment plans for IMRT and proton therapy treatments were generated. Lifetime attributable risks (LARs) for developing a second malignancy were calculated using a risk model considering cell kill, mutation, repopulation, as well as inhomogeneous organ doses. For standard fractionation schemes, the LAR for developing a second malignancy from radiation therapy alone was found to be up to 2.7% for a 4 year old optic glioma patient treated with IMRT considering a soft-tissue carcinoma risk model only. Sarcoma risks were found to be below 1% in all cases. For a 14 year old, risks were found to be about a factor of 2 lower. For Ewing's sarcoma cases the risks based on a sarcoma model were typically higher than the carcinoma risks, i.e. LAR up to 1.3% for soft-tissue sarcoma. In all cases, the risk from proton therapy turned out to be lower by at least a factor of 2 and up to a factor of 10. This is mainly due to lower total energy deposited in the patient when using proton beams. However, the comparison of a three-field and four-field proton plan also shows that the distribution of the dose, i.e. the particular treatment plan, plays a role. When using different fractionation schemes, the estimated risks roughly scale with the total dose difference in%. In conclusion, proton therapy can significantly reduce the risk for developing an in-field second malignancy. The risk depends on treatment planning parameters, i.e. an analysis based on our formalism could be applied within treatment planning programs to guide treatment plans for pediatric patients.

Adjuvant radiation therapy for early stage seminoma: proton versus photon planning comparison and modeling of second cancer risk.

PURPOSE: Given concerns of excess malignancies following adjuvant radiation for seminoma, we evaluated photon and proton beam therapy (PBT) treatment plans to assess dose distributions to organs at risk and model rates of second cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten stage I seminoma patients who were treated with conventional para-aortic AP-PA photon radiation to 25.5 Gy at Massachusetts General Hospital had PBT plans generated (AP-PA, PA alone). Dose differences to critical organs were examined. Risks of second primary malignancies were calculated. RESULTS: PBT plans were superior to photons in limiting dose to organs at risk. PBT decreased dose by 46% (8.2 Gy) and 64% (10.2 Gy) to the stomach and large bowel, respectively (p<0.01). Notably, PBT was found to avert 300 excess second cancers among 10,000 men treated at a median age of 39 and surviving to 75 (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the use of protons provided a favorable dose distribution with an ability to limit unnecessary exposure to critical normal structures in the treatment of early-stage seminoma. It is expected that this will translate into decreased acute toxicity and reduced risk of second cancers, for which prospective studies are warranted.

Comparison of second cancer risk due to out-of-field doses from 6-MV IMRT and proton therapy based on 6 pediatric patient treatment plans.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study compared 6-MV IMRT and proton therapy in terms of organ specific second cancer lifetime attributable risks (LARs) caused by scattered and secondary out-of-field radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on simulated organ doses, excess relative and excess absolute risk models were applied to assess organ-specific LARs. Two treatment sites (cranium and central spine) were considered involving six treatment volumes and six patient ages (9-month, 4-year, 8-year, 11-year, 14-year, and adult). RESULTS: The LARs for thyroid cancer from a 6 cm diameter field treating a brain lesion in a 4-year old patient were estimated to be 1.1% and 0.3% in passive proton therapy and IMRT, respectively. However, estimated LARs for bladder cancer, more than 25 cm from the field edge for the same patient and treatment field, were estimated to be 0.2% and 0.02% from IMRT and proton therapy, respectively. Risks for proton beam scanning was found to be an order of magnitude smaller compared to passive proton therapy. CONCLUSION: In terms of out-of-field risks, IMRT offers advantage close to the primary field and an increasing advantage for passive proton therapy is noticed with increasing distance to the field. Scanning proton beam therapy shows the lowest risks.

A comparative study on the risk of second primary cancers in out-of-field organs associated with radiotherapy of localized prostate carcinoma using Monte Carlo-based accelerator and patient models.

PURPOSE: A physician's decision regarding an ideal treatment approach (i.e., radiation, surgery, and/or hormonal) for prostate carcinoma is traditionally based on a variety of metrics. One of these metrics is the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancer following radiation treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate the significance of second cancer risks in out-of-field organs from 3D-CRT and IMRT treatments of prostate carcinoma compared to baseline cancer risks in these organs. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using a detailed medical linear accelerator model and an anatomically realistic adult male whole-body phantom. A four-field box treatment, a four-field box treatment plus a six-field boost, and a seven-field IMRT treatment were simulated. Using BEIR VII risk models, the age-dependent lifetime attributable risks to various organs outside the primary beam with a known predilection for cancer were calculated using organ-averaged equivalent doses. RESULTS: The four-field box treatment had the lowest treatment-related second primary cancer risks to organs outside the primary beam ranging from 7.3 x 10(-9) to 2.54 x 10(-5)%/MU depending on the patients age at exposure and second primary cancer site. The risks to organs outside the primary beam from the four-field box and six-field boost and the seven-field IMRT were nearly equivalent. The risks from the four-field box and six-field boost ranged from 1.39 x 10(-8) to 1.80 x 10(-5)%/MU, and from the seven-field IMRT ranged from 1.60 x 10(-9) to 1.35 x 10(-5)%/MU. The second cancer risks in all organs considered from each plan were below the baseline risks. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment-related second cancer risks in organs outside the primary beam due to 3D-CRT and IMRT is small. New risk assessment techniques need to be investigated to address the concern of radiation-induced second cancers from prostate treatments, particularly focusing on risks to organs inside the primary beam.

Comparison of out-of-field photon doses in 6 MV IMRT and neutron doses in proton therapy for adult and pediatric patients.

The purpose of this study was to assess lateral out-of-field doses in 6 MV IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) and compare them with secondary neutron equivalent dose contributions in proton therapy. We simulated out-of-field photon doses to various organs as a function of distance, patient's age, gender and treatment volumes based on 3, 6, 9 cm field diameters in the head and neck and spine region. The out-of-field photon doses to organs near the field edge were found to be in the range of 2, 5 and 10 mSv Gy(-1) for 3 cm, 6 cm and 9 cm diameter IMRT fields, respectively, within 5 cm of the field edge. Statistical uncertainties calculated in organ doses vary from 0.2% to 40% depending on the organ location and the organ volume. Next, a comparison was made with previously calculated neutron equivalent doses from proton therapy using identical field arrangements. For example, out-of-field doses for IMRT to lung and uterus (organs close to the 3 cm diameter spinal field) were computed to be 0.63 and 0.62 mSv Gy(-1), respectively. These numbers are found to be a factor of 2 smaller than the corresponding out-of-field doses for proton therapy, which were estimated to be 1.6 and 1.7 mSv Gy(-1) (RBE), respectively. However, as the distance to the field edge increases beyond approximately 25 cm the neutron equivalent dose from proton therapy was found to be a factor of 2-3 smaller than the out-of-field photon dose from IMRT. We have also analyzed the neutron equivalent doses from an ideal scanned proton therapy (assuming not significant amount of absorbers in the treatment head). Out-of-field doses were found to be an order of magnitude smaller compared to out-of-field doses in IMRT or passive scattered proton therapy. In conclusion, there seem to be three geometrical areas when comparing the out-of-target dose from IMRT and (passive scattered) proton treatments. Close to the target (in-field, not analyzed here) protons offer a distinct advantage due to the lower integral dose. Out-of-field, but within approximately 25 cm from the field edge, the scattered photon dose in IMRT turned out to be roughly a factor of 2 lower than the neutron equivalent dose from proton therapy for the fields considered in this study. At larger distances to the field (beyond approximately 25 cm), protons offer an advantage, resulting in doses that are roughly a factor of 2-3 lower.

Neutron equivalent doses and associated lifetime cancer incidence risks for head & neck and spinal proton therapy.

In this work we have simulated the absorbed equivalent doses to various organs distant to the field edge assuming proton therapy treatments of brain or spine lesions. We have used computational whole-body (gender-specific and age-dependent) voxel phantoms and considered six treatment fields with varying treatment volumes and depths. The maximum neutron equivalent dose to organs near the field edge was found to be approximately 8 mSv Gy(-1). We were able to clearly demonstrate that organ-specific neutron equivalent doses are age (stature) dependent. For example, assuming an 8-year-old patient, the dose to brain from the spinal fields ranged from 0.04 to 0.10 mSv Gy(-1), whereas the dose to the brain assuming a 9-month-old patient ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 mSv Gy(-1). Further, as the field aperture opening increases, the secondary neutron equivalent dose caused by the treatment head decreases, while the secondary neutron equivalent dose caused by the patient itself increases. To interpret the dosimetric data, we analyzed second cancer incidence risks for various organs as a function of patient age and field size based on two risk models. The results show that, for example, in an 8-year-old female patient treated with a spinal proton therapy field, breasts, lungs and rectum have the highest radiation-induced lifetime cancer incidence risks. These are estimated to be 0.71%, 1.05% and 0.60%, respectively. For an 11-year-old male patient treated with a spinal field, bronchi and rectum show the highest risks of 0.32% and 0.43%, respectively. Risks for male and female patients increase as their age at treatment time decreases.