Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 21, 2025
Construction of a Preclinical Multimodality Phantom Using Tissue-mimicking Materials for Quality Assurance in Tumor Size Measurement
Published on: July 29, 2013
Assessment of range uncertainty in lung-like tissue using a porcine lung phantom and proton radiography
A Meijers1, Oria C Seller, J Free
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract:
Thoracic tumours are increasingly considered indications for pencil beam scanned proton therapy (PBS-PT) treatments. Conservative robustness settings have been suggested due to potential range straggling effects caused by the lung micro-structure. Using proton radiography (PR) and a 4D porcine lung phantom, we experimentally assess range errors to be considered in robust treatment planning for thoracic indications. A human-chest-size 4D phantom hosting inflatable porcine lungs and corresponding 4D computed tomography (4DCT) were used. Five PR frames were planned to intersect the phantom at various positions. Integral depth-dose curves (IDDs) per proton spot were measured using a multi-layer ionisation chamber (MLIC). Each PR frame consisted of 81 spots with an assigned energy of 210 MeV (full width at half maximum (FWHM) 8.2 mm). Each frame was delivered five times while simultaneously acquiring the breathing signal of the 4D phantom, using an ANZAI load cell. The synchronised ANZAI and delivery log file information was used to retrospectively sort spots into their corresponding breathing phase. Based on this information, IDDs were simulated by the treatment planning system (TPS) Monte Carlo dose engine on a dose grid of 1 mm. In addition to the time-resolved TPS calculations on the 4DCT phases, IDDs were calculated on the average CT. Measured IDDs were compared with simulated ones, calculating the range error for each individual spot. In total, 2025 proton spots were individually measured and analysed. The range error of a specific spot is reported relative to its water equivalent path length (WEPL). The mean relative range error was 1.2% (1.5 SD 2.3 %) for the comparison with the time-resolved TPS calculations, and 1.0% (1.5 SD 2.2 %) when comparing to TPS calculations on the average CT. The determined mean relative range errors justify the use of 3% range uncertainty for robust treatment planning in a clinical setting for thoracic indications.
