Premium
SU‐F‐T‐137: Out‐Of‐Beam Dose for a Compact Double‐Scattering Proton Beam Therapy System
Author(s) -
Islam M,
Ahmad S,
Jin H
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4956273
Subject(s) - proton therapy , imaging phantom , beam (structure) , nuclear medicine , radiation treatment planning , proton , dosimetry , radiation therapy , percentage depth dose curve , ionization chamber , optics , physics , medicine , nuclear physics , radiology , ionization , ion , quantum mechanics
Purpose: The out‐of‐beam dose is important for understanding the peripheral dose in radiation therapy. In proton radiotherapy, the study of out‐of‐beam dose is scarce and the treatment planning system (TPS) based on pencil beam algorithm cannot accurately predict the out‐of‐beam dose. This study investigates the out‐of‐beam dose for the single‐room Mevion S250 double scattering proton therapy system using experimentally measured and treatment planning software generated data. The results are compared with those reported for conventional photon beam therapy. However, this study does not incorporate the neutron contribution in the scattered dose. Methods: A total of seven proton treatment plans were generated using Varian Eclipse TPS for three different sites (brain, lung, and pelvis) in an anthropomorphic phantom. Three field sizes of 5×5, 10×10, and 20×20 cm 2 (lung only) with typical clinical range (13.3–22.8 g/cm 2 ) and modulation widths (5.3–14.0 g/cm 2 ) were used. A single beam was employed in each treatment plan to deliver a dose of 181.8 cGy (200.0 cGy (RBE)) to the selected target. The out‐of‐beam dose was measured at 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, and 15.0 cm from the beam edge in the phantom using a thimble chamber (PTW TN31010). Results: The out‐of‐beam dose generally increased with field size, range, and volume irradiated. For all the plans, the scattered dose sharply fell off with distance. At 2.0 cm, the out‐of‐beam dose ranged from 0.35% to 2.16% of the delivered dose; however, the dose was clinically negligible (<0.3%) at a distance of 5.0 cm and greater. In photon therapy, the slightly greater out‐of‐beam dose was reported (TG36; 4%, 2%, and 1% for 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 cm, respectively, using 6 MV beam). Conclusion: The measured out‐of‐beam dose in proton therapy excluding neutron contribution was observed higher than the TPS calculated dose and comparable to that of photon beam therapy.