Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. Hadron Therapy Patient Statistics, March 2013 (available URL: Last accessed October 2013.
2. W. Newhauser, J. Fontenot, Y. Zheng, J. Polf, U. Titt, N. Koch, X. Zhang, and R. Mohan, “Monte Carlo simulations for configuring and testing an analytical proton dose-calculation algorithm,” Phys. Med. Biol. 52, 45694584 (2007).
3. R. J. Watts, “Comparative measurements on a series of accelerators by the same vendor,” Med. Phys. 26, 25812585 (1999).
4. S. H. Cho, O. N. Vassiliev, S. Lee, H. H. Liu, G. S. Ibbott, and R. Mohan, “Reference photon dosimetry data and reference phase space data for the 6 MV photon beam from Varian Clinac 2100 series linear accelerators,” Med. Phys. 32, 137148 (2005).
5. J. Hrbacek, T. Depuydt, A. Nulens, A. Swinnen, and F. Van den Heuvel, “Quantitative evaluation of a beam-matching procedure using one-dimensional gamma analysis,” Med. Phys. 34, 29172927 (2007).
6. G. P. Beyer, “Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 14, 40774094 (2013).
7. I. J. Das, C. W. Cheng, R. J. Watts, A. Ahnesjö, J. Gibbons, X. A. Li, J. Lowenstein, R. K. Mitra, W. E. Simon, and T. C. Zhu, “Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM,” Med. Phys. 35, 41864215 (2008).
8. B. Clasie, N. Depauw, M. Fransen, C. Gomà, H. R. Panahandeh, J. Seco, J. B. Flanz, and H. M. Kooy, “Golden beam data for proton pencil-beam scanning,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 11471158 (2012).
9. E. Grusell, A. Montelius, A. Brahme, G. Rikner, and K. Russell, “A general solution to charged particle beam flattening using an optimized dual-scattering-foil technique, with application to proton therapy beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 755767 (2005).
10. B. Gottschalk, “Passive beam spreading in proton radiation therapy,” October 1, 2004 (available URL: Last accessed October 2013.
11. R. Kohno, Y. Takada, T. Sakae, T. Terunuma, K. Matsumoto, A. Nohtomi, and H. Matsuda, “Experimental evaluation of validity of simplified Monte Carlo method in proton dose calculations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48, 12771288 (2003).
12. B. Schaffner, “Proton dose calculation based on in-air fluence measurements,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 15451562 (2008).
13. M. Engelsman, H. M. Lu, D. Herrup, M. Bussiere, and H. M. Kooy, “Commissioning a passive-scattering proton therapy nozzle for accurate SOBP delivery,” Med. Phys. 36, 21722180 (2009).
14. Y. Jongen, “Review on cyclotrons for cancer therapy,” in Proceedings of The 19th International Conference on Cyclotrons and their Applications, September 6–10, 2010, Langdou, China.
15. R. Slopsema, “Beam delivery using passive scattering,” in Proton Therapy Physics, edited by H. Paganetti (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2012), pp. 125156.
16. E. S. Diffenderfer, C. G. Ainsley, M. L. Kirk, J. E. McDonough, and R. L. Maughan, “Comparison of secondary neutron dose in proton therapy resulting from the use of a tungsten alloy MLC or a brass collimator system,” Med. Phys. 38, 62486256 (2011).
17. L. Hong, M. Goitein, M. Bucciolini, R. Comiskey, B. Gottschalk, S. Rosenthal, C. Serago, and M. Urie, “A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 41, 13051330 (1996).
18. W. Ulmer, “Theoretical aspects of energy-range relations, stopping power and energy straggling of protons,” Rad. Phys. Chem. 76, 10891107 (2007).
19. M. J. Berger, J. S. Coursey, M. A. Zucker, and J. Chang, “ESTAR, PSTAR, and ASTAR: Computer programs for calculating stopping-power and range tables for electrons, protons, and helium ions,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2014 (available URL: Last accessed January 10, 2014.
20. A. Smith, M. Gillin, M. Bues, R. X. Zhu, K. Suzuki, R. Mohawn, S. Woo, A. Lee, R. Komaki, J. Cox, K. Hiramoto, H. Akiyama, T. Ishida, T. Sasaki, and K. Matsuda, “The M.D. Anderson proton therapy system,” Med. Phys. 36, 40684083 (2009).
21. K. L. Chen, C. D. Bloch, P. M. Hill, and E. E. Klein, “Evaluation of neutron dose equivalent from the Mevion S250 proton accelerator: measurements and calculations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 87098723 (2013).
22.See supplementary material at for determination of tolerances on beam parameters. [Supplementary Material]

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



The purpose of this investigation is to determine if a single set of beam data, described by a minimal set of equations and fitting variables, can be used to commission different installations of a proton double-scattering system in a commercial pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm.

The beam model parameters required to commission the pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm (virtual and effective SAD, effective source size, and pristine-peak energy spread) are determined for a commercial double-scattering system. These parameters are measured in a first room and parameterized as function of proton energy and nozzle settings by fitting four analytical equations to the measured data. The combination of these equations and fitting values constitutes the golden beam data (GBD). To determine the variation in dose delivery between installations, the same dosimetric properties are measured in two additional rooms at the same facility, as well as in a single room at another facility. The difference between the room-specific measurements and the GBD is evaluated against tolerances that guarantee the 3D dose distribution in each of the rooms matches the GBD-based dose distribution within clinically reasonable limits. The pencil-beam treatment-planning algorithm is commissioned with the GBD. The three-dimensional dose distribution in water is evaluated in the four treatment rooms and compared to the treatment-planning calculated dose distribution.

The virtual and effective SAD measurements fall between 226 and 257 cm. The effective source size varies between 2.4 and 6.2 cm for the large-field options, and 1.0 and 2.0 cm for the small-field options. The pristine-peak energy spread decreases from 1.05% at the lowest range to 0.6% at the highest. The virtual SAD as well as the effective source size can be accurately described by a linear relationship as function of the inverse of the residual energy. An additional linear correction term as function of RM-step thickness is required for accurate parameterization of the effective SAD. The GBD energy spread is given by a linear function of the exponential of the beam energy. Except for a few outliers, the measured parameters match the GBD within the specified tolerances in all of the four rooms investigated. For a SOBP field with a range of 15 g/cm2 and an air gap of 25 cm, the maximum difference in the 80%–20% lateral penumbra between the GBD-commissioned treatment-planning system and measurements in any of the four rooms is 0.5 mm.

The beam model parameters of the double-scattering system can be parameterized with a limited set of equations and parameters. This GBD closely matches the measured dosimetric properties in four different rooms.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd