Experimentally validated pencil beam scanning source model in TOPAS

The presence of a low-dose envelope, or 'halo', in the fluence profile of a proton spot can increase the output of a pencil beam scanning field by over 10%. This study evaluated whether the Monte Carlo simulation code, TOPAS 1.0-beta 8, based on Geant4.9.6 with its default physics list, can predict the spot halo at depth in phantom by incorporating a halo model within the proton source distribution. Proton sources were modelled using three 2D Gaussian functions, and optimized until simulated spot profiles matched measurements at the phantom surface out to a radius of 100 mm. Simulations were subsequently compared with profiles measured using EBT3 film in Solidwater® phantoms at various depths for 100, 115, 150, 180, 210 and 225 MeV proton beams. Simulations predict measured profiles within a 1 mm distance to agreement for 2D profiles extending to the 0.1% isodose, and within 1 mm/1% Gamma criteria over the integrated curve of spot profile as a function of radius. For isodose lines beyond 0.1% of the central spot dose, the simulated primary spot sigma is smaller than the measurement by up to 15%, and can differ by over 1 mm. The choice of particle interaction algorithm and phantom material were found to cause ~1 mm range uncertainty, a maximal 5% (0.3 mm) difference in spot sigma, and maximal 1 mm and ~2 mm distance to agreement in isodoses above and below the 0.1% level, respectively. Based on these observations, therefore, the selection of physics model and the application of Solidwater® as water replacement material in simulation and measurement should be used with caution.

[1]  M. Gillin,et al.  Energy dependence and dose response of Gafchromic EBT2 film over a wide range of photon, electron, and proton beam energies. , 2010, Medical physics.

[2]  T. Solberg,et al.  Experimental characterization of two-dimensional spot profiles for two proton pencil beam scanning nozzles , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  H. Kooy,et al.  Golden beam data for proton pencil-beam scanning , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  D A Low,et al.  A software tool for the quantitative evaluation of 3D dose calculation algorithms. , 1998, Medical physics.

[5]  E Pedroni,et al.  Experimental characterization and physical modelling of the dose distribution of scanned proton pencil beams , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  W. Ulmer Theoretical aspects of energy–range relations, stopping power and energy straggling of protons , 2007 .

[7]  Michael Gillin,et al.  Use of a two-dimensional ionization chamber array for proton therapy beam quality assurance. , 2008, Medical physics.

[8]  Matthias Fippel,et al.  A pencil beam algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy derived from Monte Carlo simulations , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Liyong Lin,et al.  A novel technique for measuring the low-dose envelope of pencil-beam scanning spot profiles , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  H Paganetti,et al.  Accurate Monte Carlo simulations for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance for a proton radiation therapy facility. , 2004, Medical physics.

[11]  H. Paganetti Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  F Dessy,et al.  Fundamental radiological and geometric performance of two types of proton beam modulated discrete scanning systems. , 2013, Medical physics.

[13]  David Sarrut,et al.  Optimization of GEANT4 settings for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning simulations using GATE , 2010 .

[14]  H Paganetti,et al.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. , 2012, Medical physics.

[15]  Xiaodong Zhang,et al.  Beyond Gaussians: a study of single-spot modeling for scanning proton dose calculation , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  Indra J Das,et al.  Gafchromic EBT film dosimetry in proton beams , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  C. Ainsley,et al.  Experimental characterization of two-dimensional pencil beam scanning proton spot profiles , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  Alessandra Bolsi,et al.  Treatment planning and verification of proton therapy using spot scanning: initial experiences. , 2004, Medical physics.

[20]  R. Mohan,et al.  An MCNPX Monte Carlo model of a discrete spot scanning proton beam therapy nozzle. , 2010, Medical physics.

[21]  Oliver Jäkel,et al.  Dosimetric properties of Gafchromic® EBT films in monoenergetic medical ion beams , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Experimental characterization of the low-dose envelope of spot scanning proton beams , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  E Pedroni,et al.  Monte Carlo dose calculations for spot scanned proton therapy , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  J J Wilkens,et al.  Comparison of Gafchromic EBT2 and EBT3 films for clinical photon and proton beams. , 2012, Medical physics.

[25]  A. Ahnesjö,et al.  A beam source model for scanned proton beams , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  Michael Fenech,et al.  Mitigating the risk of radiation-induced cancers: limitations and paradigms in drug development , 2014, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[27]  Uwe Titt,et al.  Commissioning of the discrete spot scanning proton beam delivery system at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Proton Therapy Center, Houston. , 2009, Medical physics.

[28]  L Grevillot,et al.  A Monte Carlo pencil beam scanning model for proton treatment plan simulation using GATE/GEANT4 , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  R. Mohan,et al.  Commissioning dose computation models for spot scanning proton beams in water for a commercially available treatment planning system. , 2013, Medical physics.