Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy

Chee Wai Cheng, Indra J. Das, Li Zhao, Qingya Zhao, Peter A S Johnstone

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Introduction: To examine the various processes involved and to assess their effects on the accuracy of proton therapy. Materials and methods: Proton therapy involves several processes: (1) Beam commissioning. (2) CT of patient to obtain the anatomical information of the patient. (3) Contouring of the tumors and organs at risks from the CT images. (4) Treatment planning to determine the beam configurations, the aperture and compensators, and the beam weightings, satisfying a specific set of dose-volume constraints. (5) Output factor measurements for each field. (6) Patient setup verification with image guidance. (7) Dose delivery. (8) Neutron dose and proton RBE at the distal edge. Within each step, there are several sub- processes that may contribute to the uncertainty in the treatment. By analyzing each of the sub-processes within each process, we estimated an uncertainty to each sub-process and/or an uncertainty on the proton range (in millimeter). A total uncertainty in dose delivery and the location of the distal edge can be estimated. Results: Examples of the uncertainties assessed for the various processes are : (1) ±1.5%; (4) ±3.0%, and 1-3mm; (5) ±2.0%; (6) ±2 mm; (7) ±2.0%, ±2mm. The uncertainties in (2), (3)and (8) neutron dose strongly depend on the location and type of the tumor. The proton RBE value at the distal edge is still debatable. The overall uncertainty in proton therapy is at least ±4.5% and ±4 mm (by adding the various uncertainties in quadrature), without consideration of processes (2), (3) and (8).Discussion: Due to the complexity in proton therapy, it is far more complicated to assess the accuracy in proton therapy than that for photon therapy. We showed that the accuracy in proton therapy is at least ± 4.5% in dose delivered to a tumor with an uncertainty of ±4mm to the distal edge of the SOBP.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIFMBE Proceedings
Pages1769-1771
Number of pages3
Volume39 IFMBE
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013
EventWorld Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering - Beijing, China
Duration: May 26 2012May 31 2012

Other

OtherWorld Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering
CountryChina
CityBeijing
Period5/26/125/31/12

Fingerprint

Protons
Tumors
Neutrons
Uncertainty
Photons
Planning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Bioengineering

Cite this

Cheng, C. W., Das, I. J., Zhao, L., Zhao, Q., & Johnstone, P. A. S. (2013). Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy. In IFMBE Proceedings (Vol. 39 IFMBE, pp. 1769-1771) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29305-4_465

Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy. / Cheng, Chee Wai; Das, Indra J.; Zhao, Li; Zhao, Qingya; Johnstone, Peter A S.

IFMBE Proceedings. Vol. 39 IFMBE 2013. p. 1769-1771.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Cheng, CW, Das, IJ, Zhao, L, Zhao, Q & Johnstone, PAS 2013, Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy. in IFMBE Proceedings. vol. 39 IFMBE, pp. 1769-1771, World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Beijing, China, 5/26/12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29305-4_465
Cheng CW, Das IJ, Zhao L, Zhao Q, Johnstone PAS. Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy. In IFMBE Proceedings. Vol. 39 IFMBE. 2013. p. 1769-1771 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29305-4_465
Cheng, Chee Wai ; Das, Indra J. ; Zhao, Li ; Zhao, Qingya ; Johnstone, Peter A S. / Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy. IFMBE Proceedings. Vol. 39 IFMBE 2013. pp. 1769-1771
@inproceedings{bb4c9eae5a3a43a88332f7adec829ddb,
title = "Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy",
abstract = "Introduction: To examine the various processes involved and to assess their effects on the accuracy of proton therapy. Materials and methods: Proton therapy involves several processes: (1) Beam commissioning. (2) CT of patient to obtain the anatomical information of the patient. (3) Contouring of the tumors and organs at risks from the CT images. (4) Treatment planning to determine the beam configurations, the aperture and compensators, and the beam weightings, satisfying a specific set of dose-volume constraints. (5) Output factor measurements for each field. (6) Patient setup verification with image guidance. (7) Dose delivery. (8) Neutron dose and proton RBE at the distal edge. Within each step, there are several sub- processes that may contribute to the uncertainty in the treatment. By analyzing each of the sub-processes within each process, we estimated an uncertainty to each sub-process and/or an uncertainty on the proton range (in millimeter). A total uncertainty in dose delivery and the location of the distal edge can be estimated. Results: Examples of the uncertainties assessed for the various processes are : (1) ±1.5{\%}; (4) ±3.0{\%}, and 1-3mm; (5) ±2.0{\%}; (6) ±2 mm; (7) ±2.0{\%}, ±2mm. The uncertainties in (2), (3)and (8) neutron dose strongly depend on the location and type of the tumor. The proton RBE value at the distal edge is still debatable. The overall uncertainty in proton therapy is at least ±4.5{\%} and ±4 mm (by adding the various uncertainties in quadrature), without consideration of processes (2), (3) and (8).Discussion: Due to the complexity in proton therapy, it is far more complicated to assess the accuracy in proton therapy than that for photon therapy. We showed that the accuracy in proton therapy is at least ± 4.5{\%} in dose delivered to a tumor with an uncertainty of ±4mm to the distal edge of the SOBP.",
author = "Cheng, {Chee Wai} and Das, {Indra J.} and Li Zhao and Qingya Zhao and Johnstone, {Peter A S}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-642-29305-4_465",
language = "English",
isbn = "9783642293047",
volume = "39 IFMBE",
pages = "1769--1771",
booktitle = "IFMBE Proceedings",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Factors affecting accuracy in proton therapy

AU - Cheng, Chee Wai

AU - Das, Indra J.

AU - Zhao, Li

AU - Zhao, Qingya

AU - Johnstone, Peter A S

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Introduction: To examine the various processes involved and to assess their effects on the accuracy of proton therapy. Materials and methods: Proton therapy involves several processes: (1) Beam commissioning. (2) CT of patient to obtain the anatomical information of the patient. (3) Contouring of the tumors and organs at risks from the CT images. (4) Treatment planning to determine the beam configurations, the aperture and compensators, and the beam weightings, satisfying a specific set of dose-volume constraints. (5) Output factor measurements for each field. (6) Patient setup verification with image guidance. (7) Dose delivery. (8) Neutron dose and proton RBE at the distal edge. Within each step, there are several sub- processes that may contribute to the uncertainty in the treatment. By analyzing each of the sub-processes within each process, we estimated an uncertainty to each sub-process and/or an uncertainty on the proton range (in millimeter). A total uncertainty in dose delivery and the location of the distal edge can be estimated. Results: Examples of the uncertainties assessed for the various processes are : (1) ±1.5%; (4) ±3.0%, and 1-3mm; (5) ±2.0%; (6) ±2 mm; (7) ±2.0%, ±2mm. The uncertainties in (2), (3)and (8) neutron dose strongly depend on the location and type of the tumor. The proton RBE value at the distal edge is still debatable. The overall uncertainty in proton therapy is at least ±4.5% and ±4 mm (by adding the various uncertainties in quadrature), without consideration of processes (2), (3) and (8).Discussion: Due to the complexity in proton therapy, it is far more complicated to assess the accuracy in proton therapy than that for photon therapy. We showed that the accuracy in proton therapy is at least ± 4.5% in dose delivered to a tumor with an uncertainty of ±4mm to the distal edge of the SOBP.

AB - Introduction: To examine the various processes involved and to assess their effects on the accuracy of proton therapy. Materials and methods: Proton therapy involves several processes: (1) Beam commissioning. (2) CT of patient to obtain the anatomical information of the patient. (3) Contouring of the tumors and organs at risks from the CT images. (4) Treatment planning to determine the beam configurations, the aperture and compensators, and the beam weightings, satisfying a specific set of dose-volume constraints. (5) Output factor measurements for each field. (6) Patient setup verification with image guidance. (7) Dose delivery. (8) Neutron dose and proton RBE at the distal edge. Within each step, there are several sub- processes that may contribute to the uncertainty in the treatment. By analyzing each of the sub-processes within each process, we estimated an uncertainty to each sub-process and/or an uncertainty on the proton range (in millimeter). A total uncertainty in dose delivery and the location of the distal edge can be estimated. Results: Examples of the uncertainties assessed for the various processes are : (1) ±1.5%; (4) ±3.0%, and 1-3mm; (5) ±2.0%; (6) ±2 mm; (7) ±2.0%, ±2mm. The uncertainties in (2), (3)and (8) neutron dose strongly depend on the location and type of the tumor. The proton RBE value at the distal edge is still debatable. The overall uncertainty in proton therapy is at least ±4.5% and ±4 mm (by adding the various uncertainties in quadrature), without consideration of processes (2), (3) and (8).Discussion: Due to the complexity in proton therapy, it is far more complicated to assess the accuracy in proton therapy than that for photon therapy. We showed that the accuracy in proton therapy is at least ± 4.5% in dose delivered to a tumor with an uncertainty of ±4mm to the distal edge of the SOBP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84876041046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84876041046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-642-29305-4_465

DO - 10.1007/978-3-642-29305-4_465

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84876041046

SN - 9783642293047

VL - 39 IFMBE

SP - 1769

EP - 1771

BT - IFMBE Proceedings

ER -