Characterization of 250 MeV protons from Varian ProBeam pencil beam scanning system for FLASH radiation therapy

Recently, shoot-through proton FLASH has been proposed where the highest energy is extracted from the cyclotron to maximize the dose rate (DR). Even though our proton pencil beam scanning system can deliver 250 MeV (the highest energy), it is not typical to use 250 MeV protons for routine clinical treatments and as such 250 MeV may not have been characterized in the commissioning. In this study, we aim to characterize 250 MeV protons from Varian ProBeam system for FLASH RT as well as assess the ability of clinical monitoring ionization chamber (MIC) for FLASH-readiness. We measured data needed for beam commissioning: integral depth dose (IDD) curve, spot sigma, and absolute dose calibration. To evaluate MIC, we measured output as a function of beam current. To characterize a 250 MeV FLASH beam, we measured: (1) central axis DR as a function of current and spot spacing and arrangement, (2) for a fixed spot spacing, the maximum field size that still achieves FLASH DR (i.e., > 40 Gy/s), (3) DR reproducibility. All FLASH DR measurements were performed using ion chamber for the absolute dose and irradiation times were obtained from log files. We verified dose measurements using EBT-XD films and irradiation times using a fast, pixelated spectral detector. R90 and R80 from IDD were 37.58 and 37.69 cm, and spot sigma at isocenter were {\sigma}x=3.336 and {\sigma}y=3.332 mm, respectively. The absolute dose output was measured as 0.377 GyE*mm2/MU for the commissioning conditions. Output was stable for beam currents up to 15 nA, and it gradually increased to 12-fold for 115 nA. DR depended on beam current, spot spacing and arrangement and could be reproduced within 4.2% variations. Even though FLASH was achieved and the largest field size that delivers FLASH DR was determined as 35x35 mm2, current MIC has DR dependence and users should measure DR each time for their FLASH applications.Comment: 11 pages, 6 figure

Measurement of the time structure of FLASH beams using prompt gamma rays and secondary neutrons as surrogates

We aim to investigate the feasibility of online monitoring of irradiation time (IRT) and scan time for FLASH radiotherapy using a pixelated semiconductor detector. Measurements of the time structure of FLASH irradiations were performed using fast, pixelated spectral detectors, AdvaPIX-TPX3 and Minipix-TPX3. The latter has a fraction of its sensor coated with a neutron sensitive material. With little or no dead time and an ability to resolve events that are closely spaced in time (tens of ns), both detectors can accurately determine IRTs as long as pile-ups are avoided. To avoid pile-ups, we placed the detectors beyond the Bragg peak or at a large scattering angle. We acquired prompt gamma rays and secondary neutrons and calculated IRTs based on timestamps of the first (beam-on) and the last (beam-off) charged species. We also measured scan times in x, y, and diagonal directions. We performed these measurements for a single spot, a small animal field, a patient field, and a ridge filter optimized field to demonstrate in vivo online monitoring of IRT. All measurements were compared to vendor log files. Differences between measurements and log files for a single spot, a small animal field, and a patient field were within 1%, 0.3% and 1%, respectively. In vivo monitoring of IRTs was accurate within 0.1% for AdvaPIX-TPX3 and within 6.1% for Minipix-TPX3. The scan times in x, y, and diagonal directions were 4.0, 3.4, and 4.0 ms, respectively. Overall, the AdvaPIX-TPX3 can measure FLASH IRTs within 1% accuracy, indicating that prompt gamma rays are a good surrogate for primary protons. The Minipix-TPX3 showed a higher discrepancy, suggesting a need for further investigation. The scan times (3.4 \pm 0.05 ms) in the 60-mm distance of y-direction were less than (4.0 \pm 0.06 ms) in the 24-mm distance of x-direction, confirming the much faster scanning speed of the Y magnets than that of X.Comment: 11 pages, 5 figure

Multi-institutional consensus on machine QA for isochronous cyclotron-based systems delivering ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) pencil beam scanning proton therapy in transmission mode

BackgroundThe first clinical trials to assess the feasibility of FLASH radiotherapy in humans have started (FAST-01, FAST-02) and more trials are foreseen. To increase comparability between trials it is important to assure treatment quality and therefore establish a standard for machine quality assurance (QA). Currently, the AAPM TG-224 report is considered as the standard on machine QA for proton therapy, however, it was not intended to be used for ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) proton beams, which have gained interest due to the observation of the FLASH effect.PurposeThe aim of this study is to find consensus on practical guidelines on machine QA for UHDR proton beams in transmission mode in terms of which QA is required, how they should be done, which detectors are suitable for UHDR machine QA, and what tolerance limits should be applied.MethodsA risk assessment to determine the gaps in the current standard for machine QA was performed by an international group of medical physicists. Based on that, practical guidelines on how to perform machine QA for UHDR proton beams were proposed.ResultsThe risk assessment clearly identified the need for additional guidance on temporal dosimetry, addressing dose rate (constancy), dose spillage, and scanning speed. In addition, several minor changes from AAPM TG-224 were identified; define required dose rate levels, the use of clinically relevant dose levels, and the use of adapted beam settings to minimize activation of detector and phantom materials or to avoid saturation effects of specific detectors. The final report was created based on discussions and consensus.ConclusionsConsensus was reached on what QA is required for UHDR scanning proton beams in transmission mode for isochronous cyclotron-based systems and how they should be performed. However, the group discussions also showed that there is a lack of high temporal resolution detectors and sufficient QA data to set appropriate limits for some of the proposed QA procedures