Nuclear halo measurements for accurate prediction of field size factor in a Varian ProBeam proton PBS system

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 197 - 204
• Main Authors: Harms, Joseph, Chang, Chih‐Wei, Zhang, Rongxiao, Lin, Liyong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.01.2020; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Accuracy; Algorithms; Energy; experimental dosimetry; halo; Halo effect; Measurement techniques; Monte Carlo; PBS; proton beam commissioning; proton therapy; Radiation therapy; Sensors; Simulation; Technical Note; Technical Notes; PBS; proton therapy; Monte Carlo; experimental dosimetry; halo; proton beam commissioning
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12783

Purpose For pencil‐beam scanning proton therapy systems, in‐air non‐Gaussian halo can significantly impact output at small field sizes and low energies. Since the low‐intensity tail of spot profile (halo) is not necessarily modeled in treatment planning systems (TPSs), this can potentially lead to significant differences in patient dose distribution. In this work, we report such impact for a Varian ProBeam system. Methods We use a pair magnification technique to measure two‐dimensional (2D) spot profiles of protons from 70 to 242 MeV at the treatment isocenter and 30 cm upstream of the isocenter. Measurements are made with both Gafchromic film and a scintillator detector coupled to a CCD camera (IBA Lynx). Spot profiles are measured down to 0.01% of their maximum intensity. Field size factors (FSFs) are compared among calculation using measured 2D profiles, calculation using a clinical treatment planning algorithm (Raystation 8A clinical Monte Carlo), and a CC04 small‐volume ion chamber. FSFs were measured for square fields of proton energies ranging from 70 to 242 MeV. Results All film and Lynx measurements agree within 1 mm for full width at half maximum beam intensity. The measured radial spot profiles disagree with simple Gaussian approximations, which are used for modeling in the TPS. FSF measurements show the magnitude of disagreements between beam output in reality and in the TPS without modeling halo. We found that the clinical TPS overestimated output by as much as 6% for small field sizes of 2 cm at the lowest energy of 70 MeV while the film and Lynx measurements agreed within 4% and 1%, respectively, for this FSF. Conclusions If the in‐air halo for low‐energy proton beams is not fully modeled by the TPS, this could potentially lead to under‐dosing small, shallow treatment volumes in PBS treatment plans.