PURPOSE: To accurately model the beam delivery time (BDT) for a synchrotron-based proton spot scanning system using experimentally determined beam parameters. METHODS: A model to simulate the proton spot delivery sequences was constructed, and BDT was calculated by summing times for layer switch, spot switch, and spot delivery. Test plans were designed to isolate and quantify the relevant beam parameters in the operation cycle of the proton beam therapy delivery system. These parameters included the layer switch time, magnet preparation and verification time, average beam scanning speeds in x- and y-directions, proton spill rate, and maximum charge and maximum extraction time for each spill. The experimentally determined parameters, as well as the nominal values initially provided by the vendor, served as inputs to the model to predict BDTs for 602 clinical proton beam deliveries. The calculated BDTs (TBDT ) were compared with the BDTs recorded in the treatment delivery log files (TLog ): ∆t = TLog -TBDT . RESULTS: The experimentally determined average layer switch time for all 97 energies was 1.91 s (ranging from 1.9 to 2.0 s for beam energies from 71.3 to 228.8 MeV), average magnet preparation and verification time was 1.93 ms, the average scanning speeds were 5.9 m/s in x-direction and 19.3 m/s in y-direction, the proton spill rate was 8.7 MU/s, and the maximum proton charge available for one acceleration is 2.0 ± 0.4 nC. Some of the measured parameters differed from the nominal values provided by the vendor. The calculated BDTs using experimentally determined parameters matched the recorded BDTs of 602 beam deliveries (∆t = -0.49 ± 1.44 s), which were significantly more accurate than BDTs calculated using nominal timing parameters (∆t = -7.48 ± 6.97 s). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate model for BDT prediction was achieved by using the experimentally determined proton beam therapy delivery parameters, which may be useful in modeling the interplay effect and patient throughput. The model may provide guidance on how to effectively reduce BDT and may be used to identifying deteriorating machine performance.
PURPOSE: To accurately model the beam delivery time (BDT) for a synchrotron-based proton spot scanning system using experimentally determined beam parameters. METHODS: A model to simulate the proton spot delivery sequences was constructed, and BDT was calculated by summing times for layer switch, spot switch, and spot delivery. Test plans were designed to isolate and quantify the relevant beam parameters in the operation cycle of the proton beam therapy delivery system. These parameters included the layer switch time, magnet preparation and verification time, average beam scanning speeds in x- and y-directions, proton spill rate, and maximum charge and maximum extraction time for each spill. The experimentally determined parameters, as well as the nominal values initially provided by the vendor, served as inputs to the model to predict BDTs for 602 clinical proton beam deliveries. The calculated BDTs (TBDT ) were compared with the BDTs recorded in the treatment delivery log files (TLog ): ∆t = TLog -TBDT . RESULTS: The experimentally determined average layer switch time for all 97 energies was 1.91 s (ranging from 1.9 to 2.0 s for beam energies from 71.3 to 228.8 MeV), average magnet preparation and verification time was 1.93 ms, the average scanning speeds were 5.9 m/s in x-direction and 19.3 m/s in y-direction, the proton spill rate was 8.7 MU/s, and the maximum proton charge available for one acceleration is 2.0 ± 0.4 nC. Some of the measured parameters differed from the nominal values provided by the vendor. The calculated BDTs using experimentally determined parameters matched the recorded BDTs of 602 beam deliveries (∆t = -0.49 ± 1.44 s), which were significantly more accurate than BDTs calculated using nominal timing parameters (∆t = -7.48 ± 6.97 s). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate model for BDT prediction was achieved by using the experimentally determined proton beam therapy delivery parameters, which may be useful in modeling the interplay effect and patient throughput. The model may provide guidance on how to effectively reduce BDT and may be used to identifying deteriorating machine performance.
Authors: Chenbin Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Shawn Korte; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Yixiu Kang; Sameer R Keole; Terence T Sio; William W Wong; Narayan Sahoo; Martin Bues; Wei Liu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jie Shan; Yunze Yang; Steven E Schild; Thomas B Daniels; William W Wong; Mirek Fatyga; Martin Bues; Terence T Sio; Wei Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Chenbin Liu; Terence T Sio; Wei Deng; Jie Shan; Thomas B Daniels; William G Rule; Pedro R Lara; Shawn M Korte; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Steven E Schild; Martin Bues; Wei Liu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: James E Younkin; Martin Bues; Terence T Sio; Wei Liu; Xiaoning Ding; Sameer R Keole; Joshua B Stoker; Jiajian Shen Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-02-23
Authors: Jingjing M Dougherty; Edward Castillo; Richard Castillo; Austin M Faught; Mark Pepin; Sean S Park; Chris J Beltran; Thomas Guerrero; Inga Grills; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: James E Younkin; Danairis Hernandez Morales; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Joshua B Stoker; Nathan Y Yu; Terence T Sio; Thomas B Daniels; Martin Bues; Mirek Fatyga; Steven E Schild; Wei Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: James E Younkin; Danairis Hernandez Morales; Jiajian Shen; Jie Shan; Martin Bues; Jarrod M Lentz; Steven E Schild; Joshua B Stoker; Xiaoning Ding; Wei Liu Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019 Jan-Dec