| Question 1: What is the most commonly used proton dose calibration protocol? |
| Reference: | ICRU Report 78 |
| Choice A: | AAPM TG-51 |
| Choice B: | AAPM TG-16 |
| Choice C: | IAEA TRS 398 |
| Choice D: | ICRU 59 |
| Question 2: Select the key quality assurance parameters for spot scanning proton beam delivery. |
| Reference: | 2015 AAPM Summer School Proceeding; Chapter 14 |
| Choice A: | Spot energy |
| Choice B: | Spot intensity (dose/MU) |
| Choice C: | Spot position |
| Choice D: | Spot shape |
| Choice E: | All of above |
| Question 3: What is the most reliable way to validate dose calculation in the treatment planning system? |
| Reference: | 2015 AAPM Summer School Proceeding; Chapter 14 |
| Choice A: | Perform dose measurements in animal tissues |
| Choice B: | Create a set of SOBP plans to measure dose in water for various situations |
| Choice C: | Perform film measurements |
| Choice D: | Request IROC for TLD measurements |
| Question 4: A field optimized using SFO methods will: |
| Reference: | Clinical Radiation Oncology, 3rd Addition |
| Choice A: | Deliver a uniform dose throughout the entire target area |
| Choice B: | Have equal spot intensities |
| Choice C: | Be highly sensitive to small set-up errors |
| Choice D: | Take an extremely long time to deliver |
| Question 5: The PTV concept is not fully applicable in proton therapy because: |
| Reference: | Journal of the ICRU Vol 7 No 2 (2007) Report 78: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/jicru/ndn001 |
| Choice A: | Spot position accuracy of a proton beam is too large. |
| Choice B: | Range uncertainty must be considered in units of water equivalent distances and not physical distances. |
| Choice C: | The RBE in a proton beam can be higher than 1.1 |
| Choice D: | The lateral penumbra of the proton beam is much smaller than the distal penumbra |
| Question 6: True or False: MFO optimized fields are usually more robust to range uncertainty than SFO optimized fields. |
| Reference: | A. Lomax Phys. Med. Biol. 44: (1999) |
| Choice A: | True. |
| Choice B: | False. |
| Question 7: Low dose envelope contribution is dominated: |
| Reference: | Sawakuchi et al. Experimental characterization of the low-dose evelope of spot scanning proton beams, Phys Med Biol 55, 3467-3478, 2010 |
| Choice A: | by multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) in the beamline and in phantom only |
| Choice B: | by secondary particles from nuclear interaction in phantom only |
| Choice C: | (a)for low energy proton beams and (b) for high energy proton beams |
| Choice D: | Always Combination of (a) and (b) |
| Question 8: The Experimental methods that could be used for measurements of the low dose envelope are: |
| Reference: | (1) Sawakuchi et al. Experimental characterization of the low-dose evelope of spot scanning proton beams, Phys Med Biol 55, 3467-3478, 2010;
(2) Clasie et al, Golden beam data for proton pencil-beam scanning, Phys Med Biol 57, 1147-1158. 2012;
(3) Pedroni et al, Experimental characterization and physical modeling of the dose distribution of scanned proton pencil beams, Phys Med Biol 50, 541-561,2005
|
| Choice A: | Field size factor – measuring output at the center of the square fields. |
| Choice B: | Use concentric circles. |
| Choice C: | Use of concentric squares. |
| Choice D: | All of the above. |
| Question 9: Why might Correction factors be needed for integral depth dose curves? |
| Reference: | Zhu et al, Commissioning dose computation models for spot scanning proton beams in water for a commercially available treatment planning system, Med Phys 40, 041723-1-15, 2013 |
| Choice A: | Because commercial available large parallel-plate chambers is not large enough. |
| Choice B: | Because the low dose envelope extends far away from the central axis of the pencil beam. |
| Choice C: | Monte Carlo simulation can be an effective way to generate these correction factors. |
| Choice D: | All of the above. |
| Question 10: Considering the problems and roadblocks mentioned in the panel discussion, what do you think is the best strategy to hire people? |
| Reference: | National Proton Conference on staffing level survey, Orlando, Florida 2017 |
| Choice A: | Physicists or dosimetrists with photon experience are preferred because backup photon plans may be needed before or during downtime. |
| Choice B: | Extra staffing may be needed for shift flexibility and overhead in operating a proton center. |
| Choice C: | Planning comparison or publications may be needed to justify the benefit of particle therapy. |
| Choice D: | All of above. |
