Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:17:55.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing a Monte Carlo model for MEVION S250i with HYPERSCAN and Adaptive Aperture™ pencil beam scanning proton therapy system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2020

Bing-Hao Chiang ,
Austin Bunker ,
Hosang Jin ,
Salahuddin Ahmad  and
Yong Chen Open the ORCID record for Yong Chen [Opens in a new window]
Bing-Hao Chiang
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Austin Bunker
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Hosang Jin
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Salahuddin Ahmad
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Yong Chen*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Yong Chen, 800 NE 13th Street, Department of Radiation Oncology, OKCC LL100, Oklahoma City, OK73104, USA. E-mail: yong-chen@ouhsc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

As the number of proton therapy facilities has steadily increased, the need for the tool to provide precise dose simulation for complicated clinical and research scenarios also increase. In this study, the treatment head of Mevion HYPERSCAN pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy system including energy modulation system (EMS) and Adaptive Aperture™ (AA) was modelled using TOPAS (TOolkit for PArticle Simulation) Monte Carlo (MC) code and was validated during commissioning process.

Materials and methods:

The proton beam characteristics including integral depth doses (IDDs) of pristine Bragg peak and in-air beam spot sizes were simulated and compared with measured beam data. The lateral profiles, with and without AA, were also verified against calculation from treatment planning system (TPS).

Results:

All beam characteristics for IDDs and in-air spot size agreed well within 1 mm and 10% separately. The full width at half maximum and penumbra of lateral dose profile also agree well within 2 mm.

Finding:

The TOPAS MC simulation of the MEVION HYPERSCAN PBS proton therapy system has been modelled and validated; it could be a viable tool for research and verification of the proton treatment in the future.

Keywords

HYPERSCANMevionMonte CarloprotonTOPAS
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 279 - 286
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wilson, R R. Radiological use of fast protons. Radiology 1946; 47: 487–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boehling, N S, Grosshans, D R, Bluett, J B et al. Dosimetric comparison of three-dimensional conformal proton radiotherapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for treatment of pediatric craniopharyngiomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 643–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mock, U, Georg, D, Bogner, J, Auberger, T, Pötter, R. Treatment planning comparison of conventional, 3D conformal, and intensity-modulated photon (IMRT) and proton therapy for paranasal sinus carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: 147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vargas, C, Fryer, A, Mahajan, C et al. Dose–volume comparison of proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 744–751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yock, T, Schneider, R, Friedmann, A, Adams, J, Fullerton, B, Tarbell, N. Proton radiotherapy for orbital rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcome and a dosimetric comparison with photons. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63: 1161–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, L, Goitein, M, Bucciolini, M et al. A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41: 1305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perl, J, Shin, J, Schümann, J, Faddegon, B, Paganetti, H. TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. Med Phys 2012; 39: 6818–6837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Testa, M, Schümann, J, Lu, H M et al. Experimental validation of the TOPAS Monte Carlo system for passive scattering proton therapy. Med Phys 2013; 40: 121719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, K, Kim, J, Kim, D-H, Ahn, S, Han, Y. The proton therapy nozzles at Samsung Medical Center: a Monte Carlo simulation study using TOPAS. J Korean Phys Soc 2015; 67: 170–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prusator, M, Ahmad, S, Chen, Y. TOPAS simulation of the Mevion S250 compact proton therapy unit. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017; 18: 88–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A R. Vision: proton therapy. Med Phys 2009; 36: 556–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, L, Kang, M, Solberg, T D, Ainsley, C G, McDonough, J E. Experimentally validated pencil beam scanning source model in TOPAS. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: 6859–6873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed