Advertisement

Results From the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston’s Anthropomorphic Phantoms Used for Proton Therapy Clinical Trial Credentialing

Published:February 09, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.061

      Purpose

      The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston).

      Methods and Materials

      A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation.

      Results

      The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve.

      Conclusions

      The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bush D.A.
        • Slater J.D.
        • Garberoglio C.
        • et al.
        Partial breast irradiation delivered with proton beam: Results of a phase II trial.
        Clin Breast Cancer. 2011; 11: 241-245
        • Chang J.Y.
        • Komaki R.
        • Lu C.
        • et al.
        Phase 2 study of high-dose proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for unresectable stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer.
        Cancer. 2011; 117: 4707-4713
        • Mendenhall N.P.
        • Li Z.
        • Hoppe B.S.
        • et al.
        Early outcomes from three prospective trials of image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: 213-221
      1. IROC Houston QA Center. Guidelines for the use of proton radiation therapy in NCI-sponsored cooperative group clinical trials. Available at: http://rpc.mdanderson.org/RPC/home_page/Proton_guidelines.htm. Accessed January, 2016.

        • Ibbott G.S.
        • Molineu A.
        • Followill D.S.
        Independent evaluations of IMRT through the use of an anthropomorphic phantom.
        Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2006; 5: 481-487
        • Molineu A.
        • Hernandez N.
        • Nguyen T.
        • et al.
        Credentialing results from IMRT irradiations of an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.
        Med Phys. 2013; 40: 022101
        • Kry S.F.
        • Alvarez P.
        • Molineu A.
        • et al.
        Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center’s anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85: 95-100
        • Grant R.L.
        • Summers P.A.
        • Neihart J.L.
        • et al.
        Relative stopping power measurements to aid in the design of anthropomorphic phantoms for proton radiotherapy.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15: 4523
        • Molineu A.
        • Followill D.S.
        • Balter P.A.
        • et al.
        Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 63: 577-583
        • Kirby T.H.
        • Hanson W.F.
        • Johnston D.A.
        Uncertainty analysis of absorbed dose calculations from thermoluminescence dosimeters.
        Med Phys. 1992; 19: 1427-1433
        • Blatnica A.
        Modification and implementation of the RPC heterogeneous thorax phantom for verification of proton therapy treatment procedures [master’s thesis].
        University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX2011
        • Schuemann J.
        • Giantsoudi D.
        • Grassberger C.
        • et al.
        Assessing the clinical impact of approximations in analytical dose calculations for proton therapy.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 92: 1157-1164
        • Paganetti H.
        Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations.
        Phys Med Biol. 2012; 57: R99-R117

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.