Commissioning an in‐room mobile CT for adaptive proton therapy with a compact proton system. (6th April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Oliver, Jasmine A.; Zeidan, Omar; Meeks, Sanford L.; Shah, Amish P.; Pukala, Jason; Kelly, Patrick; Ramakrishna, Naren R.; Willoughby, Twyla R.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 149
• Page End: 158
• Publication Date: 2018-04-06
• Subjects: adaptive proton therapy -- adaptive re‐planning -- hounsfield unit -- mobile CT -- stopping power ratios; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12319
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To describe the commissioning of AIRO mobile CT system (AIRO) for adaptive proton therapy on a compact double scattering proton therapy system. Methods: A Gammex phantom was scanned with varying plug patterns, table heights, and mAs on a CT simulator (CT Sim) and on the AIRO. AIRO‐specific CT‐stopping power ratio (SPR) curves were created with a commonly used stoichiometric method using the Gammex phantom. A RANDO anthropomorphic thorax, pelvis, and head phantom, and a CIRS thorax and head phantom were scanned on the CT Sim and AIRO. Clinically realistic treatment plans and nonclinical plans were generated on the CT Sim images and subsequently copied onto the AIRO CT scans for dose recalculation and comparison for various AIRO SPR curves. Gamma analysis was used to evaluate dosimetric deviation between both plans. Results: AIRO CT values skewed toward solid water when plugs were scanned surrounded by other plugs in phantom. Low‐density materials demonstrated largest differences. Dose calculated on AIRO CT scans with stoichiometric‐based SPR curves produced over‐ranged proton beams when large volumes of low‐density material were in the path of the beam. To create equivalent dose distributions on both data sets, the AIRO SPR curve's low‐density data points were iteratively adjusted to yield better proton beam range agreement based on isodose lines. Comparison of the stoichiometric‐based AIRO SPR curve and the "dose‐adjusted" SPR curve showed slight improvement on gamma analysis between the treatment plan and the AIRO plan for single‐field plans at the 1%, 1 mm level, but did not affect clinical plans indicating that HU number differences between the CT Sim and AIRO did not affect dose calculations for robust clinical beam arrangements. Conclusion: Based on this study, we believe the AIRO can be used offline for adaptive proton therapy on a compact double scattering proton therapy system.