Multi‐institutional consensus on machine QA for isochronous cyclotron‐based systems delivering ultra‐high dose rate (FLASH) pencil beam scanning proton therapy in transmission mode

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe first clinical trials to assess the feasibility of FLASH radiotherapy in humans have started (FAST‐01, FAST‐02) and more trials are foreseen. To increase comparability between trials it is important to assure treatment quality and therefore establish a standard for machine quality assurance (QA). Currently, the AAPM TG‐224 report is considered as the standard on machine QA for proton therapy, however, it was not intended to be used for ultra‐high dose rate (UHDR) proton beams, which have gained interest due to the observation of the FLASH effect.PurposeThe aim of this study is to find consensus on practical guidelines on machine QA for UHDR proton beams in transmission mode in terms of which QA is required, how they should be done, which detectors are suitable for UHDR machine QA, and what tolerance limits should be applied.MethodsA risk assessment to determine the gaps in the current standard for machine QA was performed by an international group of medical physicists. Based on that, practical guidelines on how to perform machine QA for UHDR proton beams were proposed.ResultsThe risk assessment clearly identified the need for additional guidance on temporal dosimetry, addressing dose rate (constancy), dose spillage, and scanning speed. In addition, several minor changes from AAPM TG‐224 were identified; define required dose rate levels, the use of clinically relevant dose levels, and the use of adapted beam settings to minimize activation of detector and phantom materials or to avoid saturation effects of specific detectors. The final report was created based on discussions and consensus.ConclusionsConsensus was reached on what QA is required for UHDR scanning proton beams in transmission mode for isochronous cyclotron‐based systems and how they should be performed. However, the group discussions also showed that there is a lack of high temporal resolution detectors and sufficient QA data to set appropriate limits for some of the proposed QA procedures.