Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Development and evaluation of treatment planning systems for proton therapy
Author: Alshaikhi, Jailan
ISNI:       0000 0004 9353 5951
Awarding Body: UCL (University College London)
Current Institution: University College London (University of London)
Date of Award: 2020
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Purpose/Objective: Proton beam therapy offers potential benefits over x-ray radiotherapy techniques for cancer patients. This has led the UK government to develop two National Health Service facilities in England. This service requires the integration of a proton treatment planning system (TPS). The purpose of this work is to evaluate and compare the accuracy and performance of four commercially available proton TPSs. Material and Methods: Four TPSs were studied: Eclipse, Pinnacle3 , RayStation and XiO. Each was commissioned using beam data measured at the University of Pennsylvania. The efficiency of commissioning for each system was compared. The accuracy of beam modelling in each system was studied by benchmarking against measured data. Effects of beam modelling on planning parameters were studied; a series of distributions were calculated in geometric phantoms in each TPS. Impact of spot spacing, layer spacing, and margin size on dosimetric parameters were analysed. Finally, SFUD and IMPT plans for each of two clinical sites (brain and H&N) were calculated with all TPSs (16 plans) for comparison. Planning objectives and constraints were consistent for all plans. Results: Modelled beam data agreed with measurement within 3%/3 mm for all TPSs, with the exception of lateral in-air profiles >10 cm upstream of isocentre for six energies in RayStation. XiO compared more closely with measurement than other systems. Geometric phantom studies identified that Eclipse uses constant layer spacing, whereas others use variable layer spacing. Pinnacle defines spot locations by discrete 2D square grids per layer, whereas others use 3D rectangular grids. Each TPS produced clinically acceptable plans with similar conformity indices, however XiO and Pinnacle demonstrated greater homogeneity. Conclusions: Performances of all TPSs are clinically acceptable. However, differences do exist, which are attributed to differences with system algorithms. Understanding modelling characteristics for each TPS can inform planning procedure to achieve acceptable delivery.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available