title: Commissioning dose computation models for spot scanning proton beams in water for a commercially available treatment planning system.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To present our method and experience in commissioning dose models in water for spot scanning proton therapy in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS).
  
  
  METHODS
  The input data required by the TPS included in-air transverse profiles and integral depth doses (IDDs). All input data were obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations that had been validated by measurements. MC-generated IDDs were converted to units of Gy mm(2)/MU using the measured IDDs at a depth of 2 cm employing the largest commercially available parallel-plate ionization chamber. The sensitive area of the chamber was insufficient to fully encompass the entire lateral dose deposited at depth by a pencil beam (spot). To correct for the detector size, correction factors as a function of proton energy were defined and determined using MC. The fluence of individual spots was initially modeled as a single Gaussian (SG) function and later as a double Gaussian (DG) function. The DG fluence model was introduced to account for the spot fluence due to contributions of large angle scattering from the devices within the scanning nozzle, especially from the spot profile monitor. To validate the DG fluence model, we compared calculations and measurements, including doses at the center of spread out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) as a function of nominal field size, range, and SOBP width, lateral dose profiles, and depth doses for different widths of SOBP. Dose models were validated extensively with patient treatment field-specific measurements.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We demonstrated that the DG fluence model is necessary for predicting the field size dependence of dose distributions. With this model, the calculated doses at the center of SOBPs as a function of nominal field size, range, and SOBP width, lateral dose profiles and depth doses for rectangular target volumes agreed well with respective measured values. With the DG fluence model for our scanning proton beam line, we successfully treated more than 500 patients from March 2010 through June 2012 with acceptable agreement between TPS calculated and measured dose distributions. However, the current dose model still has limitations in predicting field size dependence of doses at some intermediate depths of proton beams with high energies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We have commissioned a DG fluence model for clinical use. It is demonstrated that the DG fluence model is significantly more accurate than the SG fluence model. However, some deficiencies in modeling the low-dose envelope in the current dose algorithm still exist. Further improvements to the current dose algorithm are needed. The method presented here should be useful for commissioning pencil beam dose algorithms in new versions of TPS in the future.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. xrzhu@mdanderson.org
authors.forename: X R
authors.initials: XR
authors.lastname: Zhu
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Poenisch
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lii
authors.forename: G O
authors.initials: GO
authors.lastname: Sawakuchi
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Titt
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bues
authors.forename: X
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Song
authors.forename: X
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Y
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Ciangaru
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: M B
authors.initials: MB
authors.lastname: Taylor
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Suzuki
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Mohan
authors.forename: M T
authors.initials: MT
authors.lastname: Gillin
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Sahoo
mesh_terms: D003198:Computer Simulation; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis / Q000379:methods; D015233:Models, Statistical; D061766:Proton Therapy; D011874:Radiometry / Q000592:standards*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000592:standards*; D011882:Radiotherapy, High-Energy / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000592:standards*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014481:United States; D014867:Water / Q000737:chemistry*
chemical_list: D014867:Water
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Feb 21;57(4):983-97
references.pmid: 22297324
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Nov 7;50(21):5089-104
references.pmid: 16237243
references.citation: Med Phys. 2009 Sep;36(9):4068-83
references.pmid: 19810479
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Oct 1;81(2):552-9
references.pmid: 21300457
references.citation: Med Phys. 2010 Mar;37(3):1210-9
references.pmid: 20384258
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Dec 21;54(24):7285-300
references.pmid: 19926912
references.citation: Med Phys. 2007 Nov;34(11):4219-22
references.pmid: 18072486
references.citation: Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
references.pmid: 9608475
references.citation: Med Phys. 2010 Jan;37(1):154-63
references.pmid: 20175477
references.citation: Med Phys. 2010 Sep;37(9):4960-70
references.pmid: 20964215
references.citation: Med Phys. 1995 Jan;22(1):37-53
references.pmid: 7715569
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Jun 21;55(12):3467-78
references.pmid: 20508318
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Mar 21;53(6):1545-62
references.pmid: 18367787
references.citation: Radiat Environ Biophys. 1992;31(3):251-6
references.pmid: 1502334
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Feb 7;55(3):711-21
references.pmid: 20071752
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1999 Jan;44(1):27-41
references.pmid: 10071873
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Jul 7;53(13):3519-29
references.pmid: 18552418