Edgar Gelover1, Dongxu Wang1, Patrick M Hill2, Ryan T Flynn1, Mingcheng Gao3, Steve Laub3, Mark Pankuch3, Daniel E Hyer1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, Iowa 52242. 2. Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53792. 3. Division of Medical Physics, CDH Proton Center, 4455 Weaver Parkway, Warrenville, Illinois 60555.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To introduce a method to model the 3D dose distribution of laterally asymmetric proton beamlets resulting from collimation. The model enables rapid beamlet calculation for spot scanning (SS) delivery using a novel penumbra-reducing dynamic collimation system (DCS) with two pairs of trimmers oriented perpendicular to each other. METHODS: Trimmed beamlet dose distributions in water were simulated with MCNPX and the collimating effects noted in the simulations were validated by experimental measurement. The simulated beamlets were modeled analytically using integral depth dose curves along with an asymmetric Gaussian function to represent fluence in the beam's eye view (BEV). The BEV parameters consisted of Gaussian standard deviations (sigmas) along each primary axis (σ(x1),σ(x2),σ(y1),σ(y2)) together with the spatial location of the maximum dose (μ(x),μ(y)). Percent depth dose variation with trimmer position was accounted for with a depth-dependent correction function. Beamlet growth with depth was accounted for by combining the in-air divergence with Hong's fit of the Highland approximation along each axis in the BEV. RESULTS: The beamlet model showed excellent agreement with the Monte Carlo simulation data used as a benchmark. The overall passing rate for a 3D gamma test with 3%/3 mm passing criteria was 96.1% between the analytical model and Monte Carlo data in an example treatment plan. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical model is capable of accurately representing individual asymmetric beamlets resulting from use of the DCS. This method enables integration of the DCS into a treatment planning system to perform dose computation in patient datasets. The method could be generalized for use with any SS collimation system in which blades, leaves, or trimmers are used to laterally sharpen beamlets.
PURPOSE: To introduce a method to model the 3D dose distribution of laterally asymmetric proton beamlets resulting from collimation. The model enables rapid beamlet calculation for spot scanning (SS) delivery using a novel penumbra-reducing dynamic collimation system (DCS) with two pairs of trimmers oriented perpendicular to each other. METHODS: Trimmed beamlet dose distributions in water were simulated with MCNPX and the collimating effects noted in the simulations were validated by experimental measurement. The simulated beamlets were modeled analytically using integral depth dose curves along with an asymmetric Gaussian function to represent fluence in the beam's eye view (BEV). The BEV parameters consisted of Gaussian standard deviations (sigmas) along each primary axis (σ(x1),σ(x2),σ(y1),σ(y2)) together with the spatial location of the maximum dose (μ(x),μ(y)). Percent depth dose variation with trimmer position was accounted for with a depth-dependent correction function. Beamlet growth with depth was accounted for by combining the in-air divergence with Hong's fit of the Highland approximation along each axis in the BEV. RESULTS: The beamlet model showed excellent agreement with the Monte Carlo simulation data used as a benchmark. The overall passing rate for a 3D gamma test with 3%/3 mm passing criteria was 96.1% between the analytical model and Monte Carlo data in an example treatment plan. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical model is capable of accurately representing individual asymmetric beamlets resulting from use of the DCS. This method enables integration of the DCS into a treatment planning system to perform dose computation in patient datasets. The method could be generalized for use with any SS collimation system in which blades, leaves, or trimmers are used to laterally sharpen beamlets.
Authors: H Szymanowski; A Mazal; C Nauraye; S Biensan; R Ferrand; M C Murillo; S Caneva; G Gaboriaud; J C Rosenwald Journal: Med Phys Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Benjamin Clasie; Nicolas Depauw; Maurice Fransen; Carles Gomà; Hamid Reza Panahandeh; Joao Seco; Jacob B Flanz; Hanne M Kooy Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Stephen J Dowdell; Benjamin Clasie; Nicolas Depauw; Peter Metcalfe; Anatoly B Rosenfeld; Hanne M Kooy; Jacob B Flanz; Harald Paganetti Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Blake Smith; Edgar Gelover; Alexandra Moignier; Dongxu Wang; Ryan T Flynn; Liyong Lin; Maura Kirk; Tim Solberg; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alexandra Moignier; Edgar Gelover; Blake R Smith; Dongxu Wang; Ryan T Flynn; Maura L Kirk; Liyong Lin; Timothy D Solberg; Alexander Lin; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nicholas P Nelson; Wesley S Culberson; Daniel E Hyer; Blake R Smith; Ryan T Flynn; Patrick M Hill Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2022-02-18
Authors: Theodore J Geoghegan; Nicholas P Nelson; Ryan T Flynn; Patrick M Hill; Suresh Rana; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alexandra Moignier; Edgar Gelover; Dongxu Wang; Blake Smith; Ryan Flynn; Maura Kirk; Liyong Lin; Timothy Solberg; Alexander Lin; Daniel Hyer Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-03-24
Authors: Nicholas P Nelson; Wesley S Culberson; Daniel E Hyer; Theodore J Geoghegan; Kaustubh A Patwardhan; Blake R Smith; Ryan T Flynn; Jen Yu; Suresh Rana; Alonso N Gutiérrez; Patrick M Hill Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 4.506