Water equivalent thickness of immobilization devices in proton therapy planning - Modelling at treatment planning and validation by measurements wi...

Phys Med. 2017 Mar;35:31-38. Epub 2017 Feb 23.

Fellin F¹, Righetto R¹, Fava G¹, Trevisan D², Amelio D¹, Farace P³.

1   Proton Therapy Unit, Hospital of Trento, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.

2   Medical Physics Department, Hospital of Trento, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy.

3   Proton Therapy Unit, Hospital of Trento, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy. Electronic address: paolofarace@gmail.com.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To investigate the range errors made in treatment planning due to the presence of the immobilization devices along the proton beam path.

METHODS:

The measured water equivalent thickness (WET) of selected devices was measured by a high-energy spot and a multi-layer ionization chamber and compared with that predicted by treatment planning system (TPS). Two treatment couches, two thermoplastic masks (both un-stretched and stretched) and one headrest were selected. At TPS, every immobilization device was modelled as being part of the patient. The following parameters were assessed: CT acquisition protocol, dose-calculation grid-sizes (1.5 and 3.0mm) and beam-entrance with respect to the devices (coplanar and non-coplanar). Finally, the potential errors produced by a wrong manual separation between treatment couch and the CT table (not present during treatment) were investigated.

RESULTS:

In the thermoplastic mask, there was a clear effect due to beam entrance, a moderate effect due to the CT protocols and almost no effect due to TPS grid-size, with 1mm errors observed only when thick un-stretched portions were crossed by non-coplanar beams. In the treatment couches the WET errors were negligible (<0.3mm) regardless of the grid-size and CT protocol. The potential range errors produced in the manual separation between treatment couch and CT table were small with 1.5mm grid-size, but could be >0.5mm with a 3.0mm grid-size. In the headrest, WET errors were negligible (0.2mm).

CONCLUSIONS:

With only one exception (un-stretched mask, non-coplanar beams), the WET of all the immobilization devices was properly modelled by the TPS.