Purpose: Proton scattering on beam shaping devices and protons slowing down on media with different densities within the treatment volume may produce dose perturbations and range variations that are not predicted by treatment planning systems. The aim of this work was to assess the dosimetric impact of elements present in ocular proton therapy treatments that may disturb the prescribed treatment plan. Both distal beam shaping devices and intraocular elements were considered.
Methods: A wedge filter, tantalum fiducial marker, hemispherical compensator, two intraocular endotamponades (densities 0.97 and 1.92 g cm(-3)) and an intraocular eye lens (IOL) were considered in the study. For these elements, longitudinal dose distributions were measured and∕or calculated in water in beam alignment for a clinical spread-out Bragg peak. Under the same conditions, the unperturbed dose distributions were similarly measured and∕or calculated in the absence of the element. The dosimetric impact was assessed by comparison of unperturbed and perturbed dose distributions. Measurements and calculations were carried out with two methods. Measurements are based on EBT3 films with dedicated software, which makes use of a calibration curve and correction for the quenching effect. Calculations are based on the Monte Carlo (MC) code MCNPX and reproduce the experimental conditions. Both dose maps are obtained with a resolution of 300 dpi.
Results: The degree of disturbance of distal beam shaping devices is low for the wedge filter (2% overdose ripple all along the central axis) and moderate for the hemispherical compensator (two bands of variable overdose of up to 10% downstream the compensator lateral edges and -5% underdose on the plateau at off-axis distance of 5 cm). Tantalum clips produce important dose shadows (-20% behind the clip parallel to the beam and range reduction of 1.1 mm) and bands of overdose (15%). The presence of endotamponades modifies the dose distribution very significantly (-5% underdose on the plateau and 3 mm range prolongation for the tamponade with density 0.97 g cm(-3) and -15% underdose on plateau and 8 mm range reduction for that with density 1.92 g cm(-3)). No dose perturbations were found for the IOL. The high performance of EBT3 film and MC tools used was confirmed and good agreement was found between them (percentage of pixels passing the gamma test >87%).
Conclusions: The degree of disturbance by external beam shaping devices remains low in ocular proton therapy and can be reduced by bringing accessories closer to the eye. Tantalum fiducial markers must be located in such a way that dose perturbation is not projected on the tumor. The treatment of patients with intraocular endotamponades must be carefully managed. It is fundamental that radiation oncologists and medical physicists are informed about the presence of such substances prior to the treatment.