Multiinstitutional survey of source modeling parameters for proton pencil beam scanning treatment planning system...

Standardizing beam modeling in the treatment planning system is challenging due to machine-specific configuration variations. Because of the proton therapy system (PTS) complexity and continuous development, there is no vendor's representative ("golden") beam data like in LINACs at this stage.

The primary goal of this study is to create a PTS-specific repository of source model parameters and beam commissioning data for scanning proton therapy treatment planning systems and establish a set of reference values with associated bands of variations for this data.

We conducted a survey of 31 PTSs at 27 proton therapy centers to gather beam commissioning source model parameters used in their treatment planning system, ensuring a diverse selection of PTSs from major vendors: Hitachi, IBA, Varian, and Mevion. For each proton therapy center, we collected (i) beam meterset calibration in protons per MU, (ii) in-air spot size at isocenter in terms of standard deviation in x- (crossline, σ_x) and y- (inline, σ_y) directions, (iii) in-air angular spread at isocenter in x-direction (θ_x) and y-direction (θ_y) and (iv) distal falloff. For each PTS, we plotted each parameter as a function of nominal energy and performed polynomial regression analysis with optimal model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to quantify inter-PTS variability and generated uncertainty bands representing standard deviations across PTSs for each parameter. Additionally, we computed percentage deviations of each individual PTS from the overall multivendor mean to identify systematic vendor-specific patterns and outliers across the 31 total PTSs analyzed.

Multivendor beam parameter analysis across 31 PTSs revealed systematic vendor-specific patterns in interPTS consistency and energy dependencies. Beam meterset calibration demonstrated excellent interPTS consistency across most vendors (ICC: Varian ProBeam ≈ 0, IBA Proteus ONE = 0.006, Mevion S250i with HYPERSCAN = 0.015), with IBA Proteus PLUS systems showing moderate variation (ICC = 0.156 for the dedicated nozzle, ICC = 0.248, for the universal nozzle). Spot size and angular spread variability were highly vendor-dependent, ranging from excellent consistency in IBA Proteus ONE to substantial variation in IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle (angular spread ICC = 0.566). Distal falloff maintained excellent consistency across all vendors (ICC < 0.023), indicating reliable energy spread characteristics. Uncertainty band analysis revealed characteristic energy-dependent patterns, with most systems showing larger uncertainties at lower energies for spot size and angular spread, while IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle exhibited the largest uncertainty bands overall. Percentage deviation analysis demonstrated vendor-specific clustering patterns, with some systems showing systematic positive or negative deviations from the multi-vendor mean.

The reference data provided in this work will help to cross-check the beam model during treatment planning system commissioning. Furthermore, this information is useful for Monte Carlo applications and research, where beam characteristics are required to set up phase space parameters, thereby avoiding the need to model the entire PTS. Finally, the results of this study will have indispensable educational value by providing valuable insights into the characteristics and capabilities of different PTSs.