SU‐E‐T‐214: Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Based On Passively Scattered Protons and Multi‐Leaf Collimation: Prototype TPS and Dosimetry Study

• Published in: Medical physics (Lancaster) 2014-06, Vol.41 (6Part14), p.272-272
• Main Authors: Sanchez‐Parcerisa, D, Carabe‐Fernandez, A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; Anatomy; DOSIMETRY; Field shaping; Medical treatment planning; Multileaf collimators; OPTIMIZATION; ORGANS; PHANTOMS; PROTON BEAMS; Proton therapy; Protons; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; RADIOTHERAPY
• ISSN: 0094-2405; 2473-4209
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4888544

Purpose. Intensity‐modulated proton therapy is usually implemented with multi‐field optimization of pencil‐beam scanning (PBS) proton fields. However, at the view of the experience with photon‐IMRT, proton facilities equipped with double‐scattering (DS) delivery and multi‐leaf collimation (MLC) could produce highly conformal dose distributions (and possibly eliminate the need for patient‐specific compensators) with a clever use of their MLC field shaping, provided that an optimal inverse TPS is developed. Methods. A prototype TPS was developed in MATLAB. The dose calculation process was based on a fluence‐dose algorithm on an adaptive divergent grid. A database of dose kernels was precalculated in order to allow for fast variations of the field range and modulation during optimization. The inverse planning process was based on the adaptive simulated annealing approach, with direct aperture optimization of the MLC leaves. A dosimetry study was performed on a phantom formed by three concentrical semicylinders separated by 5 mm, of which the inner‐most and outer‐most were regarded as organs at risk (OARs), and the middle one as the PTV. We chose a concave target (which is not treatable with conventional DS fields) to show the potential of our technique. The optimizer was configured to minimize the mean dose to the OARs while keeping a good coverage of the target. Results. The plan produced by the prototype TPS achieved a conformity index of 1.34, with the mean doses to the OARs below 78% of the prescribed dose. This Result is hardly achievable with traditional conformal DS technique with compensators, and it compares to what can be obtained with PBS. Conclusion. It is certainly feasible to produce IMPT fields with MLC passive scattering fields. With a fully developed treatment planning system, the produced plans can be superior to traditional DS plans in terms of plan conformity and dose to organs at risk.