| Question 1: In comparison to divergent ion beam scanning, parallel ion beam scanning systems provide additional entrance dose sparing that is independent of the field size applied (True/False) |
| Reference: | Reference: Farr, J. B., et al. (2018). "New horizons in particle therapy systems." Med Phys 45(11): e953-e983. |
| Choice A: | True |
| Choice B: | False |
| Question 2: With a proton therapy scanning system, the high dose conformity to the target can be improved by: |
| Reference: | Farr, J. B., et al. (2018). "New horizons in particle therapy systems." Med Phys 45(11): e953-e983. |
| Choice A: | Adding a beam trimmer |
| Choice B: | Performing target contour optimization |
| Choice C: | Increasing the spot size |
| Choice D: | All of the above |
| Choice E: | A and B only |
| Question 3: With protons as the reference, when comparing Multiple Coulomb Scattering in water, helium-4 ions have approximately what ratio of increased sigma with depth in comparison with carbon-12 ions? |
| Reference: | Tommasino, F., et al. (2015). "New Ions for Therapy." International Journal of Particle Therapy 2(3): 428-438. |
| Choice A: | the same as for protons |
| Choice B: | about 1/2 |
| Choice C: | about 1/4 |
| Choice D: | because helium is lighter than air, it doesn’t scatter in water |
| Question 4: Major sources of uncertainties in particle therapy stem from: |
| Reference: | Parodi K, Polf JC (2018) In vivo range verification in particle therapy. Med Phys 45: e1036-e1050 |
| Choice A: | Limited knowledge of the beam energy from the accelerator |
| Choice B: | Increased sensitivity to positional/anatomical changes of the patient |
| Choice C: | Uncertainties in radiobiological effectiveness of the used ion species |
| Choice D: | Finite range of the ions, determining the Bragg peak position |
| Choice E: | B, C, and D |
| Choice F: | A and D |
| Question 5: Methods accounting for treatment uncertainties in the ion treatment planning process feature |
| Reference: | Wedenberg M, Beltran C, Mairani A, Alber M, Advanced Treatment Planning. Med Phys. 2018 Nov;45(11):e1011-e1023 |
| Choice A: | Robust optimization |
| Choice B: | Introduction of a high level of intensity modulation |
| Choice C: | Usage of time resolved DVHs |
| Choice D: | Usage of a fixed RBE value of 1.1 for protons |
| Choice E: | None of the above |
| Question 6: Methods under investigation for in-vivo ion range verification feature: |
| Reference: | Wedenberg M, Beltran C, Mairani A, Alber M, Advanced Treatment Planning. Med Phys. 2018 Nov;45(11):e1011-e1023 |
| Choice A: | Direct measurement of the transmitted therapeutic radiation, similar to EPID dosimetry in photon therapy |
| Choice B: | Measurement of gamma radiation produced in the beta minus decay of activated tissue nuclei |
| Choice C: | Measurement of prompt gamma radiation produced in nuclear interaction of the incoming ions with the tissue nuclei |
| Choice D: | Measurement of thermoacoustic emissions induced by the energy deposition process |
| Choice E: | C and D |
| Choice F: | A and B |
