Theodore J Geoghegan1, Nicholas P Nelson2, Ryan T Flynn1, Patrick M Hill3, Suresh Rana4, Daniel E Hyer1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. 2. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, 1111 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53705, USA. 3. Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, 8900 N. Kendall Drive, Miami, FL, 33176, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: When designing a collimation system for pencil beam spot scanning proton therapy, a decision must be made whether or not to rotate, or focus, the collimator to match beamlet deflection as a function of off-axis distance. If the collimator is not focused, the beamlet shape and fluence will vary as a function of off-axis distance due to partial transmission through the collimator. In this work, we quantify the magnitude of these effects and propose a focused dynamic collimation system (DCS) for use in proton therapy spot scanning. METHODS: This study was done in silico using a model of the Miami Cancer Institute's (MCI) IBA Proteus Plus system created in Geant4-based TOPAS. The DCS utilizes rectangular nickel trimmers mounted on rotating sliders that move in synchrony with the pencil beam to provide focused collimation at the edge of the target. Using a simplified setup of the DCS, simulations were performed at various off-axis locations corresponding to beam deflection angles ranging from 0° to 2.5°. At each off-axis location, focused (trimmer rotated) and unfocused (trimmer not rotated) simulations were performed. In all simulations, a 4 cm water equivalent thickness range shifter was placed upstream of the collimator, and a voxelized water phantom that scored dose was placed downstream, each with 4 cm airgaps. RESULTS: Increasing the beam deflection angle for an unfocused trimmer caused the collimated edge of the beamlet profile to shift 0.08-0.61 mm from the baseline 0° simulation. There was also an increase in low-dose regions on the collimated edge ranging from 14.6% to 192.4%. Lastly, the maximum dose, D max , was 0-5% higher for the unfocused simulations. With a focused trimmer design, the profile shift and dose increases were all eliminated. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that focusing a collimator in spot scanning proton therapy reduces dose at the collimated edge compared to conventional, unfocused collimation devices and presented a simple, mechanical design for achieving focusing for a range of source-to-collimator distances.
PURPOSE: When designing a collimation system for pencil beam spot scanning proton therapy, a decision must be made whether or not to rotate, or focus, the collimator to match beamlet deflection as a function of off-axis distance. If the collimator is not focused, the beamlet shape and fluence will vary as a function of off-axis distance due to partial transmission through the collimator. In this work, we quantify the magnitude of these effects and propose a focused dynamic collimation system (DCS) for use in proton therapy spot scanning. METHODS: This study was done in silico using a model of the Miami Cancer Institute's (MCI) IBA Proteus Plus system created in Geant4-based TOPAS. The DCS utilizes rectangular nickel trimmers mounted on rotating sliders that move in synchrony with the pencil beam to provide focused collimation at the edge of the target. Using a simplified setup of the DCS, simulations were performed at various off-axis locations corresponding to beam deflection angles ranging from 0° to 2.5°. At each off-axis location, focused (trimmer rotated) and unfocused (trimmer not rotated) simulations were performed. In all simulations, a 4 cm water equivalent thickness range shifter was placed upstream of the collimator, and a voxelized water phantom that scored dose was placed downstream, each with 4 cm airgaps. RESULTS: Increasing the beam deflection angle for an unfocused trimmer caused the collimated edge of the beamlet profile to shift 0.08-0.61 mm from the baseline 0° simulation. There was also an increase in low-dose regions on the collimated edge ranging from 14.6% to 192.4%. Lastly, the maximum dose, D max , was 0-5% higher for the unfocused simulations. With a focused trimmer design, the profile shift and dose increases were all eliminated. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that focusing a collimator in spot scanning proton therapy reduces dose at the collimated edge compared to conventional, unfocused collimation devices and presented a simple, mechanical design for achieving focusing for a range of source-to-collimator distances.
Authors: Bijan Arjomandy; Narayan Sahoo; X Ronald Zhu; John R Zullo; Richard Y Wu; Mingping Zhu; Xiaoning Ding; Craig Martin; George Ciangaru; Michael T Gillin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Edgar Gelover; Dongxu Wang; Patrick M Hill; Ryan T Flynn; Mingcheng Gao; Steve Laub; Mark Pankuch; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Dongxu Wang; Blake Dirksen; Daniel E Hyer; John M Buatti; Arshin Sheybani; Eric Dinges; Nicole Felderman; Mindi TenNapel; John E Bayouth; Ryan T Flynn Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Blake R Smith; Nicholas P Nelson; Theodore J Geoghegan; Kaustubh A Patwardhan; Patrick M Hill; Jen Yu; Alonso N Gutiérrez; Bryan G Allen; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-02-21 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 Geoghegan; Kaustubh Patwardhan; Nicholas Nelson; Patrick Hill; Ryan Flynn; Blake Smith; Daniel Hyer Journal: J Med Device Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 0.743
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