Design of a 3D patient‐specific collision avoidance virtual framework for half‐gantry proton therapy system. Issue 2 (10th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dougherty, Jingjing M.; Whitaker, Thomas J.; Mundy, Daniel W.; Tryggestad, Erik J.; Beltran, Chris J.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-12-10
• Subjects: API scripting -- CAD model -- collision avoidance -- ESAPI -- proton beam configurations -- proton therapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13496
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: This study presents a comprehensive collision avoidance framework based on three‐dimension (3D) computer‐aided design (CAD) modeling, a graphical user interface (GUI) as peripheral to the radiation treatment planning (RTP) environment, and patient‐specific plan parameters for intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods: A stand‐alone software application was developed leveraging the Varian scripting application programming interface (API) for RTP database object accessibility. The Collision Avoider software models the Hitachi ProBeat‐V half gantry design and the Kuka robotic couch with triangle mesh structures. Patient‐specific plan parameters are displayed in the collision avoidance software for potential proximity evaluation. The external surfaces of the patients and the immobilization devices are contoured based on computed tomography (CT) images. A "table junction‐to‐CT‐origin" (JCT) measurement is made for every patient at the time of CT simulation to accurately provide reference location of the patient contours to the treatment couch. Collision evaluations were performed virtually with the program during treatment planning to prevent four major types of collisional events: collisions between the gantry head and the treatment couch, gantry head and the patient's body, gantry head and the robotic arm, and collisions between the gantry head and the immobilization devices. Results: The Collision Avoider software was able to accurately model the proton treatment delivery system and the robotic couch position. Commonly employed clinical beam configuration and JCT values were investigated. Brain and head and neck patients require more complex gantry and patient positioning system configurations. Physical measurements were performed to validate 3D CAD model geometry. Twelve clinical proton treatment plans were used to validate the accuracy of the software. The software can predict all four types of collisional events in our clinic since its full implementation in 2020. Conclusion: A highly efficient patient‐specific collision prevention program for scanning proton therapy has been successfully implemented. The graphical program has provided accurate collision detection since its inception at our institution.