Literature DB >> 19610318

Energy spectrum control for modulated proton beams.

Wen C Hsi1, Michael F Moyers, Dmitri Nichiporov, Vladimir Anferov, Mark Wolanski, Chris E Allgower, Jonathan B Farr, Anthony E Mascia, Andries N Schreuder.   

Abstract

In proton therapy delivered with range modulated beams, the energy spectrum of protons entering the delivery nozzle can affect the dose uniformity within the target region and the dose gradient around its periphery. For a cyclotron with a fixed extraction energy, a rangeshifter is used to change the energy but this produces increasing energy spreads for decreasing energies. This study investigated the magnitude of the effects of different energy spreads on dose uniformity and distal edge dose gradient and determined the limits for controlling the incident spectrum. A multilayer Faraday cup (MLFC) was calibrated against depth dose curves measured in water for nonmodulated beams with various incident spectra. Depth dose curves were measured in a water phantom and in a multilayer ionization chamber detector for modulated beams using different incident energy spreads. Some nozzle entrance energy spectra can produce unacceptable dose nonuniformities of up to +/-21% over the modulated region. For modulated beams and small beam ranges, the width of the distal penumbra can vary by a factor of 2.5. When the energy spread was controlled within the defined limits, the dose nonuniformity was less than +/-3%. To facilitate understanding of the results, the data were compared to the measured and Monte Carlo calculated data from a variable extraction energy synchrotron which has a narrow spectrum for all energies. Dose uniformity is only maintained within prescription limits when the energy spread is controlled. At low energies, a large spread can be beneficial for extending the energy range at which a single range modulator device can be used. An MLFC can be used as part of a feedback to provide specified energy spreads for different energies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19610318      PMCID: PMC2832068          DOI: 10.1118/1.3132422

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


  8 in total

1.  Nuclear interactions of 160 MeV protons stopping in copper: a test of Monte Carlo nuclear models.

Authors:  B Gottschalk; R Platais; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Particle selection for laser-accelerated proton therapy feasibility study.

Authors:  E Fourkal; J S Li; M Ding; T Tajima; C M Ma
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The prediction of output factors for spread-out proton Bragg peak fields in clinical practice.

Authors:  Hanne M Kooy; Stanley J Rosenthal; Martijn Engelsman; Alejandro Mazal; Roelf L Slopsema; Harald Paganetti; Jacob B Flanz
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Neutron scattered dose equivalent to a fetus from proton radiotherapy of the mother.

Authors:  Geraldine Mesoloras; George A Sandison; Robert D Stewart; Jonathan B Farr; Wen C Hsi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Multichannel detectors for profile measurements in clinical proton fields.

Authors:  Dmitri Nichiporov; Keith Solberg; Wen Hsi; Mark Wolanski; Anthony Mascia; Jonathan Farr; Andries Schreuder
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Calibration of a proton beam energy monitor.

Authors:  M F Moyers; G B Coutrakon; A Ghebremedhin; K Shahnazi; P Koss; E Sanders
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Monte Carlo simulations for configuring and testing an analytical proton dose-calculation algorithm.

Authors:  Wayne Newhauser; Jonas Fontenot; Yuanshui Zheng; Jerimy Polf; Uwe Titt; Nicholas Koch; Xiaodong Zhang; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Development and verification of the pulsed scanned proton beam at The Svedberg Laboratory in Uppsala.

Authors:  Nina Tilly; Erik Grusell; Peter Kimstrand; Stefan Lorin; Konrad Gajewski; Mikael Pettersson; Andreas Bäcklund; Bengt Glimelius
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 3.609

  8 in total
  5 in total

1.  Range and modulation dependencies for proton beam dose per monitor unit calculations.

Authors:  Wen C Hsi; Andries N Schreuder; Michael F Moyers; Chris E Allgower; Jonathan B Farr; Anthony E Mascia
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Beam characteristics in two different proton uniform scanning systems: a side-by-side comparison.

Authors:  Dmitri Nichiporov; Wen Hsi; Jonathan Farr
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Depth dose perturbation by a hydrogel fiducial marker in a proton beam.

Authors:  Miao Zhang; Meral Reyhan; Leonard H Kim
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Comparison of multi-institutional Varian ProBeam pencil beam scanning proton beam commissioning data.

Authors:  Ulrich W Langner; John G Eley; Lei Dong; Katja Langen
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 5.  Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.174

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.