TY - JOUR
T1 - Results from the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston's Anthropomorphic Phantoms Used for Proton Therapy Clinical Trial Credentialing
AU - Taylor, Paige A.
AU - Kry, Stephen F.
AU - Alvarez, Paola
AU - Keith, Tyler
AU - Lujano, Carrie
AU - Hernandez, Nadia
AU - Followill, David S.
N1 - Funding Information:
The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Center Quality Assurance Center proton radiation therapy program is supported by the federal share of income earned by Massachusetts General Hospital Proton Therapy Research and Treatment Center, contract C06 CA059267 and Public Health Service grants CA081647, CA10953, and CA180803 awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services National Cancer Institute.
Funding Information:
The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Center Quality Assurance Center proton radiation therapy program is supported by the federal share of income earned by Massachusetts General Hospital Proton Therapy Research and Treatment Center, contract C06 CA059267 and Public Health Service grants CA081647, CA10953, and CA180803 awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services National Cancer Institute.
PY - 2016/5/1
Y1 - 2016/5/1
N2 - Purpose The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston). Methods and Materials A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation. Results The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve. Conclusions The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets.
AB - Purpose The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston). Methods and Materials A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation. Results The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve. Conclusions The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963626835&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84963626835&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.061
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.061
M3 - Article
C2 - 27084644
AN - SCOPUS:84963626835
SN - 0360-3016
VL - 95
SP - 242
EP - 248
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
IS - 1
ER -