Monte Carlo simulation‐based patient‐specific QA using machine log files for line‐scanning proton radiation therapy
Authors: Jeon Chanil , Lee Jinhyeop , Shin Jungwook , Cheon Wonjoong , Ahn Sunghwan , Jo Kwanghyun , Han Youngyih 
Published: September 2023

Background

Quality assurance (QA) is a prerequisite for safe and accurate pencil‐beam proton therapy. Conventional measurement‐based patient‐specific QA (pQA) can only verify limited aspects of patient treatment and is labor‐intensive. Thus, a better method is needed to ensure the integrity of the treatment plan.

Purpose

Line scanning, which involves continuous and rapid delivery of pencil beams, is a state‐of‐the‐art proton therapy technique. Machine performance in delivering scanning protons is dependent on the complexity of the beam modulations. Moreover, it contributes to patient treatment accuracy. A Monte Carlo (MC) simulation‐based QA method that reflects the uncertainty related to the machine during scanning beam delivery was developed and verified for clinical applications to pQA.

Methods

Herein, a tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) for nozzle modeling was used, and the code was commissioned against the measurements. To acquire the beam delivery uncertainty for each plan, patient plans were delivered. Furthermore, log files recorded every 60 μs by the monitors downstream of the nozzle were exported from the treatment control system. The spot positions and monitor unit (MU) counts in the log files were converted to dipole magnet strengths and number of particles, respectively, and entered into the TOPAS. For the 68 clinical cases, MC simulations were performed in a solid water phantom, and two‐dimensional (2D) absolute dose distributions at 20‐mm depth were measured using an ionization chamber array (Octavius 1500, PTW, Freiburg, Germany). Consequently, the MC‐simulated 2D dose distributions were compared with the measured data, and the dose distributions in the pre‐treatment QA plan created with RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Absolute dose comparisons were made using gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria for 47 clinical cases without considering daily machine output variation in the MC simulation and 21 cases with daily output variation, respectively. All cases were analyzed with 90% or 95% of passing rate thresholds.

Results

For 47 clinical cases not considering daily output variations, the absolute gamma passing rates compared with the pre‐treatment QA plan were 99.71% and 96.97%, and the standard deviations (SD) were 0.70% and 3.78% with the 3%/3 mm or 2%/2 mm criteria, respectively. Compared with the measurements, the passing rate of 2%/2 mm gamma criterion was 96.76% with 3.99% of SD. For the 21 clinical cases compared with pre‐treatment QA plan data and measurements considering daily output variations, the 2%/2 mm absolute gamma analysis result was 98.52% with 1.43% of SD and 97.67% with 2.72% of SD, respectively. With a 95% passing rate threshold of 2%/2 mm criterion, the false‐positive and false‐negative were 21.8% and 8.3% for without and with considering output variation, respectively. With a 90% threshold, the false‐positive and false‐negative reduced to 11.4% and 0% for without and with considering output variation, respectively.

Conclusions

A log‐file‐based MC simulation method for patient QA of line‐scanning proton therapy was successfully developed. The proposed method exhibited clinically acceptable accuracy, thereby exhibiting a potential to replace the measurement‐based dosimetry QA method with a 90% gamma passing rate threshold when applying the 2%/2 mm criterion.