Literature DB >> 17388166

Determination of output factors for small proton therapy fields.

Jonas D Fontenot1, Wayne D Newhauser, Charles Bloch, R Allen White, Uwe Titt, George Starkschall.   

Abstract

Current protocols for the measurement of proton dose focus on measurements under reference conditions; methods for measuring dose under patient-specific conditions have not been standardized. In particular, it is unclear whether dose in patient-specific fields can be determined more reliably with or without the presence of the patient-specific range compensator. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the reliability of two methods for measuring dose per monitor unit (DIMU) values for small-field treatment portals: one with the range compensator and one without the range compensator. A Monte Carlo model of the Proton Therapy Center-Houston double-scattering nozzle was created, and estimates of D/MU values were obtained from 14 simulated treatments of a simple geometric patient model. Field-specific D/MU calibration measurements were simulated with a dosimeter in a water phantom with and without the range compensator. D/MU values from the simulated calibration measurements were compared with D/MU values from the corresponding treatment simulation in the patient model. To evaluate the reliability of the calibration measurements, six metrics and four figures of merit were defined to characterize accuracy, uncertainty, the standard deviations of accuracy and uncertainty, worst agreement, and maximum uncertainty. Measuring D/MU without the range compensator provided superior results for five of the six metrics and for all four figures of merit. The two techniques yielded different results primarily because of high-dose gradient regions introduced into the water phantom when the range compensator was present. Estimated uncertainties (approximately 1 mm) in the position of the dosimeter in these regions resulted in large uncertainties and high variability in D/MU values. When the range compensator was absent, these gradients were minimized and D/MU values were less sensitive to dosimeter positioning errors. We conclude that measuring D/MU without the range compensator present provides more reliable results than measuring it with the range compensator in place.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17388166     DOI: 10.1118/1.2428406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

1.  Dosimetric accuracy of planning and delivering small proton therapy fields.

Authors:  Bryan Bednarz; Juliane Daartz; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-19       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Commissioning a passive-scattering proton therapy nozzle for accurate SOBP delivery.

Authors:  M Engelsman; H M Lu; D Herrup; M Bussiere; H M Kooy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  The physics of proton therapy.

Authors:  Wayne D Newhauser; Rui Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Assessment of the accuracy of an MCNPX-based Monte Carlo simulation model for predicting three-dimensional absorbed dose distributions.

Authors:  U Titt; N Sahoo; X Ding; Y Zheng; W D Newhauser; X R Zhu; J C Polf; M T Gillin; R Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Calculation of water equivalent thickness of materials of arbitrary density, elemental composition and thickness in proton beam irradiation.

Authors:  Rui Zhang; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Reducing stray radiation dose to patients receiving passively scattered proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Jonas D Fontenot; Yuanshui Zheng; Dragan Mirkovic; Andrew K Lee; Uwe Titt; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Feasibility of using PRESAGE® for relative 3D dosimetry of small proton fields.

Authors:  Li Zhao; Joseph Newton; Mark Oldham; Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; John Adamovics
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Stray radiation dose and second cancer risk for a pediatric patient receiving craniospinal irradiation with proton beams.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Dragan Mirkovic; Jonas D Fontenot; Annelise Giebeler; Yuanshui Zheng; David Kornguth; Radhe Mohan; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-03-20       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Experimental Assessment of Proton Dose Calculation Accuracy in Small-Field Delivery Using a Mevion S250 Proton Therapy System.

Authors:  Kyle D DePew; Salahuddin Ahmad; Hosang Jin
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

10.  Investigation on Patient/Compensator Scatter Factor for Monitor Unit Calculation in Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Michael T Prusator; Salahuddin Ahmad; Yong Chen
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2018-11-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.