A C Kraan1, N Depauw2, B Clasie2, T Madden2, H M Kooy2. 1. Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa, Italy. Electronic address: aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Physics, Boston, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In scanned proton beam therapy systematic deviations in spot size at iso-center can occur as a result of changes in the beam-line optics. There is currently no general guideline of the spot size accuracy required clinically. In this work we quantify treatment plan robustness to systematic spot size variations as a function of spot size and spot spacing, and we suggest guidelines for tolerance levels for spot size variations. METHODS: Through perturbation of spot size in treatment plans for 7 patients and a phantom, we evaluated the dose impact of systematic spot size variations of 5% up to 50%. We investigated the dependence on nominal spot size by studying scenarios with small, medium and large spot sizes for various inter-spot spacings. To come to tolerance levels, we used the Γ passing rate and dose-volume-histograms. RESULTS: Limits on spot size accuracy were extracted for 8 sites, 3 different spot sizes and 3 different inter-spot spacings. While the allowable spot size variation strongly depends on the spot size, the inter-spot spacing turned out to be only of limited influence. CONCLUSIONS: Plan robustness to spot size variations strongly depend on spot size, with small spot plans being much more robust than larger spots plans. Inter-spot spacing did not influence plan robustness. Combining our results with existing literature, we propose limits of ±25%, ±20% and ±10% of the spot width σ, for spots with σ of 2.5, 5.0 and 10 mm in proton therapy spot scanning facilities, respectively.
BACKGROUND: In scanned proton beam therapy systematic deviations in spot size at iso-center can occur as a result of changes in the beam-line optics. There is currently no general guideline of the spot size accuracy required clinically. In this work we quantify treatment plan robustness to systematic spot size variations as a function of spot size and spot spacing, and we suggest guidelines for tolerance levels for spot size variations. METHODS: Through perturbation of spot size in treatment plans for 7 patients and a phantom, we evaluated the dose impact of systematic spot size variations of 5% up to 50%. We investigated the dependence on nominal spot size by studying scenarios with small, medium and large spot sizes for various inter-spot spacings. To come to tolerance levels, we used the Γ passing rate and dose-volume-histograms. RESULTS: Limits on spot size accuracy were extracted for 8 sites, 3 different spot sizes and 3 different inter-spot spacings. While the allowable spot size variation strongly depends on the spot size, the inter-spot spacing turned out to be only of limited influence. CONCLUSIONS: Plan robustness to spot size variations strongly depend on spot size, with small spot plans being much more robust than larger spots plans. Inter-spot spacing did not influence plan robustness. Combining our results with existing literature, we propose limits of ±25%, ±20% and ±10% of the spot width σ, for spots with σ of 2.5, 5.0 and 10 mm in proton therapy spot scanning facilities, respectively.