FLASH dose rate calculation based on log files in proton pencil beam scanning therapy

• Published in: Medical physics (Lancaster) 2023-11, Vol.50 (11), p.7154-7166
• Main Authors: Jeon, Chanil, Ahn, Sunghwan, Amano, Daizo, Kamiguchi, Nagaaki, Cho, Sungkoo, Sheen, Heesoon, Park, Hee Chul, Han, Youngyih
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0094-2405; 2473-4209
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.16575

In radiation therapy, irradiating healthy normal tissues in the beam trajectories is inevitable. This unnecessary dose means that patients undergoing treatment risk developing side effects. Recently, FLASH radiotherapy delivering ultra-high-dose-rate beams has been re-examined because of its normal-tissue-sparing effect. To confirm the mean and instantaneous dose rates of the FLASH beam, stable and accurate dosimetry is required. Detailed verification of the FLASH effect requires dosimeters and a method to measure the average and instantaneous dose rate stably for 2- or 3-dimensional dose distributions. To verify the delivered FLASH beam, we utilized machine log files from the built-in monitor chamber to develop a dosimetry method to calculate the dose and average/instantaneous dose rate distributions in two or three dimensions in a phantom. To create a spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) and deliver a uniform dose in a target, a mini-ridge filter was created with a 3D printer. Proton pencil beam line scanning plans of 2 × 2 cm , 3 × 3 cm , 4 × 4 cm , and round shapes with 2.3 cm diameter patterns delivering 230 MeV energy protons were created. The absorbed dose in the solid water phantom of each plan was measured using a PPC05 ionization chamber (IBA Dosimetry, Virginia, USA) in the SOBP region, and the log files for each plan were exported from the treatment control system console. Using these log files, the delivered dose and average dose rate were calculated using two methods: a direct method and a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method that uses log file information. The computed and average dose rates were compared with the ionization chamber measurements. Additionally, instantaneous dose rates in user-defined volumes were calculated using the MC simulation method with a temporal resolution of 5 ms. Compared to ionization chamber dosimetry, 10 of 12 cases using the direct calculation method and 9 of 11 cases using the MC method had a dose difference below ±3%. Nine of 12 cases using the direct calculation method and 8 of 11 cases using the MC method had dose rate differences below ±3%. The average and maximum dose differences for the direct calculation and MC method were-0.17, +0.72%, and -3.15, +3.32%, respectively. For the dose rate difference, the average and maximum for the direct calculation and MC method were +1.26, +1.12%, and +3.75, +3.15%, respectively. In the instantaneous dose rate calculation with the MC simulation, a large fluctuation with a maximu