PURPOSE: To quantitatively investigate the effect of range shifter materials on single-spot characteristics of a proton pencil beam. METHODS: An analytic approximation for multiple Coulomb scattering ("differential Moliere" formula) was adopted to calculate spot sizes of proton spot scanning beams impinging on a range shifter. The calculations cover a range of delivery parameters: six range shifter materials (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, Lexan, Lucite, polyethylene, polystyrene, and wax) and water as reference material, proton beam energies ranging from 75 to 200 MeV, range shifter thicknesses of 4.5 and 7.0 g/cm(2), and range shifter positions from 5 to 50 cm. The analytic method was validated by comparing calculation results with the measurements reported in the literature. RESULTS: Relative to a water-equivalent reference, the spot size distal to a wax or polyethylene range shifter is 15% smaller, while the spot size distal to a range shifter made of Lexan or Lucite is about 6% smaller. The relative spot size variations are nearly independent of beam energy and range shifter thickness and decrease with smaller air gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Among the six material investigated, wax and polyethylene are desirable range shifter materials when the spot size is kept small. Lexan and Lucite are the desirable range shifter materials when the scattering power is kept similar to water.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively investigate the effect of range shifter materials on single-spot characteristics of a proton pencil beam. METHODS: An analytic approximation for multiple Coulomb scattering ("differential Moliere" formula) was adopted to calculate spot sizes of proton spot scanning beams impinging on a range shifter. The calculations cover a range of delivery parameters: six range shifter materials (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, Lexan, Lucite, polyethylene, polystyrene, and wax) and water as reference material, proton beam energies ranging from 75 to 200 MeV, range shifter thicknesses of 4.5 and 7.0 g/cm(2), and range shifter positions from 5 to 50 cm. The analytic method was validated by comparing calculation results with the measurements reported in the literature. RESULTS: Relative to a water-equivalent reference, the spot size distal to a wax or polyethylene range shifter is 15% smaller, while the spot size distal to a range shifter made of Lexan or Lucite is about 6% smaller. The relative spot size variations are nearly independent of beam energy and range shifter thickness and decrease with smaller air gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Among the six material investigated, wax and polyethylene are desirable range shifter materials when the spot size is kept small. Lexan and Lucite are the desirable range shifter materials when the scattering power is kept similar to water.
Authors: Hugo Palmans; Julyan E Symons; Jean-Marc Denis; Evan A de Kock; Dan T L Jones; Stefaan Vynckier Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2002-09-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Gabriel O Sawakuchi; X Ronald Zhu; Falk Poenisch; Kazumichi Suzuki; George Ciangaru; Uwe Titt; Aman Anand; Radhe Mohan; Michael T Gillin; Narayan Sahoo Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Uwe Titt; Dragan Mirkovic; George Ciangaru; X Ronald Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael T Gillin; Radhe Mohan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Michael T Gillin; Narayan Sahoo; Martin Bues; George Ciangaru; Gabriel Sawakuchi; Falk Poenisch; Bijan Arjomandy; Craig Martin; Uwe Titt; Kazumichi Suzuki; Alfred R Smith; X Ronald Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-01 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: Jatinder Saini; Ning Cao; Stephen R Bowen; Miguel Herrera; Daniel Nicewonger; Tony Wong; Charles D Bloch Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-08-29
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
Authors: Liyong Lin; Sheng Huang; Minglei Kang; Petri Hiltunen; Reynald Vanderstraeten; Jari Lindberg; Sami Siljamaki; Todd Wareing; Ian Davis; Allen Barnett; John McGhee; Charles B Simone; Timothy D Solberg; James E McDonough; Christopher Ainsley Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 2.102