Premium
SU‐E‐T‐268: Proton Radiosurgery End‐To‐End Testing Using Lucy 3D QA Phantom
Author(s) -
Choi D,
Gordon I,
Ghebremedhin A,
Wroe A,
Schulte R,
Bush D,
Slater J,
Patyal B
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4888599
Subject(s) - isocenter , imaging phantom , radiosurgery , nuclear medicine , collimator , radiation treatment planning , proton therapy , dosimetry , pencil beam scanning , medical imaging , physics , materials science , optics , beam (structure) , radiation therapy , medicine , radiology
Purpose: To check the overall accuracy of proton radiosurgery treatment delivery using ready‐made circular collimator inserts and fixed thickness compensating boluses. Methods: Lucy 3D QA phantom (Standard Imaging Inc. WI, USA) inserted with GaFchromicTM film was irradiated with laterally scattered and longitudinally spread‐out 126.8 MeV proton beams. The tests followed every step in the proton radiosurgery treatment delivery process: CT scan (GE Lightspeed VCT), target contouring, treatment planning (Odyssey 5.0, Optivus, CA), portal calibration, target localization using robotic couch with image guidance and dose delivery at planned gantry angles. A 2 cm diameter collimator insert in a 4 cm diameter radiosurgery cone and a 1.2 cm thick compensating flat bolus were used for all beams. Film dosimetry (RIT114 v5.0, Radiological Imaging Technology, CO, USA) was used to evaluate the accuracy of target localization and relative dose distributions compared to those calculated by the treatment planning system. Results: The localization accuracy was estimated by analyzing the GaFchromic films irradiated at gantry 0, 90 and 270 degrees. We observed 0.5 mm shift in lateral direction (patient left), ±0.9 mm shift in AP direction and ±1.0 mm shift in vertical direction (gantry dependent). The isodose overlays showed good agreement (<2mm, 50% isodose lines) between measured and calculated doses. Conclusion: Localization accuracy depends on gantry sag, CT resolution and distortion, DRRs from treatment planning computer, localization accuracy of image guidance system, fabrication of ready‐made aperture and cone housing. The total deviation from the isocenter was 1.4 mm. Dose distribution uncertainty comes from distal end error due to bolus and CT density, in addition to localization error. The planned dose distribution was well matched (>90%) to the measured values 2%/2mm criteria. Our test showed the robustness of our proton radiosurgery treatment delivery system using ready‐made collimator inserts and fixed thickness compensating boluses.