Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:17:48.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A dosimetric analysis of proton beam therapy using different snouts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2018

Khalid Iqbal ,
Qurat-ul-ain Shamsi Open the ORCID record for Qurat-ul-ain Shamsi [Opens in a new window] ,
Kent A Gifford ,
Sania Anum  and
Saeed Ahmad Buzdar
Khalid Iqbal
Affiliation:
Clinical & Radiation Oncology Department, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
Qurat-ul-ain Shamsi*
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Kent A Gifford
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, M D Anderson Cancer Centre, University of Texas, Houston, USA
Sania Anum
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Saeed Ahmad Buzdar
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
*
Author for correspondence: Qurat-ul-ain Shamsi, Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan. Tel: +923216827959; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

This exploration is intended to analyse the dosimetric characteristics of proton beams of multiple energies using different snout sizes.

Materials and methods

A synchrotron was used for the extraction of eight proton beam energies (100–250 MeV). Dosimetric measurements were taken in a water phantom that was irradiated with a proton beam emanating from the gantry system at angles 0, 90, 180 and 270 degree using a large and a medium snout. The range of beam energies in the phantom, their corresponding centre modulation depth (CMD) and the width of spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) were measured by Markus chamber. Double scattering technique was employed for the creation of SOBPs.

Results

The range of proton beams varied from 4·3 cm for 100 MeV beam to 28·5 cm for 250 MeV beam with the medium snout and from 4·3 cm for 100 MeV to 25 cm for 250 MeV beam with large snout in the water phantom. SOBP width showed a variation from 4 to 10 cm with medium and large snout. While determining the output with medium snout, the discrepancy of 1·1% was observed between the maximum and minimum mean values of output for all the given set of energies and angles. There occurred a difference of 0·9% between the maximum and minimum mean values of output with the large snout. Beam output at SOBP centre was 12% higher with large snout as compared to that with medium snout for all the given beam energies. Flatness and symmetry were found within ±2·5% tolerance limits with medium and large snouts.

Conclusion

Flatness and symmetry were found within explicit limits with both medium and large snouts. Large snout produced higher beam output than that of medium snout at the centre of SOBP. This exploration can be extended to the determination of beam output, flatness and symmetry with a small snout.

Keywords

dosimetric specificationsflatness and symmetryproton beamquality assurancesynchrotron
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 180 - 185
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Iqbal K, Shamsi Q, Gifford KA, Anum S, Buzdar SA. (2019) A dosimetric analysis of proton beam therapy using different snouts. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice18: 180–185. doi: 10.1017/S1460396918000675

References

1. Iqbal, K, Gillin, M, Summers, P A, Dhanesar, S, Gifford, K A, Buzdar, S A. Quality assurance evaluation of spot scanning beam proton therapy with an anthropomorphic prostate phantom. Br J Radiol 2013; 86: 20130390.Google Scholar
2. Smith, A R. Vision 20/20: Proton therapy. Am Assoc Phys Med 2009; 36 (2): 556–568 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3058485.Google Scholar
3. Paganetti, H, Jiang, H, Adams, J A, Cheng, G T, Rietzel, E. Accurate Monte Carlo for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance in proton therapy. Med Phys 2004; 31: 2107–2118.Google Scholar
4. Grusell, E, Montelius, A, Brahme, A, Rickner, G, Russell, K. A general solution to charged particle beam flattening using an optimized dual scattering foil technique, with application to proton therapy beams. Phys Med Biol 1994 (39): 2201–2216.Google Scholar
5. Smith, A, Gillin, M, Bues, M et al. The M. D. Anderson proton therapy system. Med Phys 2009; 36 (9): 4068–4083.Google Scholar
6. Gillin, M, Zhu, X R, Sahoo, N. Considerations for an effective quality assurance program for proton therapy. Ion Beam Ther 2001: 471–485.Google Scholar
7. Arjomandy, B, Sahoo, N, Zhu, X R et al. An overview of the comprehensive proton therapy machine quality assurance procedures implemented at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Proton Therapy Center–Houston. Med Phy 2009; 36 (6): 2269–2282.Google Scholar
8. Actis, O, Meer, D, König, S, Weber, D C, Mayor, A. A comprehensive and efficient daily quality assurance for PBS proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62 (5): 1661–1675.Google Scholar
9. Gillin, M T, Sahoo, N, Martin, B 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. Med Phys 2010; 37 (1): 154.Google Scholar
10. Coutrakon, G, Slater, J M, Ghebremedhin, A. Design considerations for medical proton accelerators. Proceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference. New York, 1999; pp. 11–15.Google Scholar
11. Mock, U, Bogner, J, Georg, D, Auberger, T. Comparative treatment planning on localized prostate carcinoma conformal photonversus proton-based radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2005; 181: 448–455 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-005-1317-7.Google Scholar
12. Goitein, M. Compensation for inhomogeneities in charge particle radiotherapy using computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1978; 4: 499–508.Google Scholar
13. Urie, M, Goitein, M, Wagner, M. Compensating for heterogeneities in proton radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 1984; 29: 553–566.Google Scholar
14. Schaffner, B, Pedroni, E. The precision of proton range calculations in proton radiotherapy treatment planning: experimental verification of the relation between CTHU and proton stopping power. Phys Med Biol 1998; 43: 1579–1592.Google Scholar
15. Newhauser, W. Proton and charged particle radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2008; 35 (5): 320.Google Scholar
16. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report 78, J ICRU 2007; 7 (2), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.Google Scholar
17. Nichiporov, D, Hsi, W C, Farr, J B. Beam characteristics in two different proton uniform scanning systems: A side-by-side comparison. Med Phys 2012; 39 (5): 2559–2568.Google Scholar
18. Newhauser, W D, Zhang, R. The physics of proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2015; 60 (8): R155–R209.Google Scholar
19. IAEA TRS-398. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. Vienna, Austria, 5th June 2006, Volume 12.Google Scholar
20. Shamsi, Q, Atiq, M, Atiq, A, Buzdar, S A, Iqbal, K, Iqbal, M M. Dosimetric comparison of photon beam profile characteristics for different treatment parameters. J Radiother in Pract 2017; 16 (4): 444–450.Google Scholar
21. Hossain, M, Rhoades, J. On beam quality and flatness of radiotherapy megavoltage photon beams. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2016; 39 (1): 135–145.Google Scholar
22. Pathak, P, Mishra, P K, Singh, M, Mishra, P K. Analytical Study of Flatness and Symmetry of Electron Beam with 2D Array Detectors. J Cancer Sci Ther 2015; 7: 294–301 https://doi.org/10.4172/1948-5956.1000366 Google Scholar
23. Henry, T, Robertson, D, Therriault-Proulx, F, Beddar, S. Determination of the Range and Spread-Out Bragg Peak Width of Proton Beams Using a Large-Volume Liquid Scintillator. Int J Particle Ther 2017; 4 (1): 1–6.Google Scholar
24. Zhao, T, Sun, B, Grantham, K et al. Commissioning and initial experience with the first clinical gantry-mounted proton therapy system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2016; 17: 24–40 https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5868 Google Scholar
25. Nath, R, Biggs, P J, Bova, F J et al. AAPM code of practice for radiotherapy accelerators: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Task Group No. 45. Med Phys 1994; 21: 1093–1121.Google Scholar
26. Shende, R, Gupta, G, Patel, G, Kumar, S. Commissioning of TrueBeamTM Medical Linear Accelerator: quantitative and qualitative dosimetric analysis and comparison of flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) beam. Int. J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol 2016; 5: 51–69.Google Scholar
27. Kutcher, G J, Coia, L, Gillin, M et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 1994; 21 (4): 581–618.Google Scholar
28. Klein, E E, Hanley, J, Bayouth, J et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys 2009; 36 (9): 4197–4212.Google Scholar