Design of static and dynamic ridge filters for FLASH–IMPT: A simulation study
Abstract
Purpose
This paper focused on the design and optimization of ridge filter–based intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and its potential applications for FLASH. Differing from the standard pencil beam scanning (PBS) mode, no energy/layer switching is required and total treatment time can be shortened.
Methods
Unique dose-influence matrices were generated as a proton beam traverses through slabs of different thicknesses (i.e., modulation by different layers). To establish the references for comparison, conventional IMPT plans (single field) were created using a large-scale nonlinear solver. The spot weights from the reference IMPT plans were used as inputs for optimizing the design of ridge filters. Two designs were evaluated: model A (static) and model B (dynamic). The ridge filter designs were first verified (by GEANT4 simulation) in a water phantom and then in an H&N case. A direct comparison was made between the GEANT4 simulation results of two models and their respective references, with regard to plan quality, dose-averaged dose rate, and total treatment time.
Results
In both the water phantom and the H&N case, two models are able to modulate dose distributions with high conformity, showing no significant difference relative to the reference plans. Dose rate–volume histograms suggest that in order to achieve a dose rate of 40 Gy/s over 90% PTV, the beam intensity needs to be 2.5 × 1011 protons/s for both models. For a fraction dose of 10 Gy, the total treatment time (including both irradiation time and dead time) can be shortened by a factor of 4.9 (model A) and 6.5 (model B), relative to the reference plans.
Conclusion
Two proposed designs (both static and dynamic) can be used for PBS–IMPT requiring no layer switching. They are promising candidates for FLASH-IMPT capable of reducing treatment time and achieving high dose rates while maintaining dose conformity simultaneously.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.