PURPOSE: Current commercial treatment planning systems are not able to accurately predict output factors and calculate monitor units for proton fields. Patient-specific field output factors are thus determined by either measurements or empirical modeling based on commissioning data. The objective of this study is to commission output factors for uniform scanning beams utilized at the ProCure proton therapy centers. METHODS: Using water phantoms and a plane parallel ionization chamber, the authors first measured output factors with a fixed 10 cm diameter aperture as a function of proton range and modulation width for clinically available proton beams with ranges between 4 and 31.5 cm and modulation widths between 2 and 15 cm. The authors then measured the output factor as a function of collimated field size at various calibration depths for proton beams of various ranges and modulation widths. The authors further examined the dependence of the output factor on the scanning area (i.e., uncollimated proton field), snout position, and phantom material. An empirical model was developed to calculate the output factor for patient-specific fields and the model-predicted output factors were compared to measurements. RESULTS: The output factor increased with proton range and field size, and decreased with modulation width. The scanning area and snout position have a small but non-negligible effect on the output factors. The predicted output factors based on the empirical modeling agreed within 2% of measurements for all prostate treatment fields and within 3% for 98.5% of all treatment fields. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive measurements at a large subset of available beam conditions are needed to commission output factors for proton therapy beams. The empirical modeling agrees well with the measured output factor data. This investigation indicates that it is possible to accurately predict output factors and thus eliminate or reduce time-consuming patient-specific output measurements for proton treatments.
PURPOSE: Current commercial treatment planning systems are not able to accurately predict output factors and calculate monitor units for proton fields. Patient-specific field output factors are thus determined by either measurements or empirical modeling based on commissioning data. The objective of this study is to commission output factors for uniform scanning beams utilized at the ProCure proton therapy centers. METHODS: Using water phantoms and a plane parallel ionization chamber, the authors first measured output factors with a fixed 10 cm diameter aperture as a function of proton range and modulation width for clinically available proton beams with ranges between 4 and 31.5 cm and modulation widths between 2 and 15 cm. The authors then measured the output factor as a function of collimated field size at various calibration depths for proton beams of various ranges and modulation widths. The authors further examined the dependence of the output factor on the scanning area (i.e., uncollimated proton field), snout position, and phantom material. An empirical model was developed to calculate the output factor for patient-specific fields and the model-predicted output factors were compared to measurements. RESULTS: The output factor increased with proton range and field size, and decreased with modulation width. The scanning area and snout position have a small but non-negligible effect on the output factors. The predicted output factors based on the empirical modeling agreed within 2% of measurements for all prostate treatment fields and within 3% for 98.5% of all treatment fields. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive measurements at a large subset of available beam conditions are needed to commission output factors for proton therapy beams. The empirical modeling agrees well with the measured output factor data. This investigation indicates that it is possible to accurately predict output factors and thus eliminate or reduce time-consuming patient-specific output measurements for proton treatments.
Authors: Robert P Johnson; Vladimir Bashkirov; Langley DeWitt; Valentina Giacometti; Robert F Hurley; Pierluigi Piersimoni; Tia E Plautz; Hartmut F-W Sadrozinski; Keith Schubert; Reinhard Schulte; Blake Schultze; Andriy Zatserklyaniy Journal: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 1.679
Authors: Chris Beltran; H Wan Chan Tseung; Kurt E Augustine; Martin Bues; Daniel W Mundy; Timothy J Walsh; Michael G Herman; Nadia N Laack Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-12-30
Authors: Liyong Lin; JiaJian Shen; Christopher G Ainsley; Timothy D Solberg; James E McDonough Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102