| Question 1: Which of the following statement is WRONG about the current status of proton Monte Carlo: |
| Reference: | Liyong Lin, Paige A. Taylor, Jiajian Shen, Jatinder Saini, Minglei Kang, Charles B. Simone II, Jeffrey D. Bradley, Zuofeng Li, Ying Xiao; NRG Oncology Survey of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Use in US Proton Therapy Centers. Int J Part Ther 2021; doi: |
| Choice A: | Being used in commercial TPS for dose optimization or evaluation. |
| Choice B: | Being used at in-house as secondary dose calculation. |
| Choice C: | Being used more on heterogeneous disease sites and patients with metal. implants |
| Choice D: | Being used in commercial TPS for LET/RBE optimization of clinic patients. |
| Question 2: What images are used for the treatment planning of patients with metal implants? |
| Reference: | Liyong Lin, Paige A. Taylor, Jiajian Shen, Jatinder Saini, Minglei Kang, Charles B. Simone II, Jeffrey D. Bradley, Zuofeng Li, Ying Xiao; NRG Oncology Survey of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Use in US Proton Therapy Centers. Int J Part Ther 2021; doi: |
| Choice A: | Most centers used MRI images |
| Choice B: | Most centers used MAR images without overide |
| Choice C: | Most centers used MAR images and override of implant and surrounding tissues |
| Question 3: What is the rough estimated uncertainty for heterogeneous patient geometries (e.g. head and neck patients) in range for single field and in D95 for full treatment plans when using analytical instead of MC simulations to predict dose distributions? |
| Reference: | 1.Schuemann J, Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Moteabbed M, Min CH, Paganetti H. Assessing the Clinical Impact of Approximations in Analytical Dose Calculations for Proton Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):1157–64. PMCID: PMC4509834
2.Schuemann J, Dowdell S, Grassberger C, Min CH, Paganetti H. Site-specific range uncertainties caused by dose calculation algorithms for proton therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2014 Aug 7;59(15):4007–31. PMCID: PMC4136435 |
| Choice A: | 2% and 6% |
| Choice B: | 6% and 5% |
| Choice C: | 10% and 5% |
| Choice D: | 3% and 3% |
| Question 4: What was the main hurdle of MC simulations to become the dose calculation engine for clinical treatment planning? |
| Reference: | Paganetti H. Monte Carlo simulations will change the way we treat patients with proton beams today. Br J Radiol. 2014 Aug;87(1040):20140293. PMCID: PMC4112394 |
| Choice A: | MC simulations were not accurate enough |
| Choice B: | MC simulations were too complicated for clinical use |
| Choice C: | MC simulations were too slow |
| Choice D: | Vendors did not like the MC method |
| Question 5: Dual-energy data set can be acquired using which of the following technical approach(es)? |
| Reference: | Cynthia H. McCollough, Shuai Leng, Lifeng Yu, Joel G. Fletcher. Dual- and Multi-Energy CT: Principles, Technical Approaches, and Clinical Applications. Radiology 276 637 (2015) |
| Choice A: | Rapid switching of the x-ray tube potential |
| Choice B: | Multilayer detector |
| Choice C: | Dual x-ray sources |
| Choice D: | Photon counting detectors |
| Choice E: | All of above |
| Question 6: Which of the following statement is true regarding metal artifact reduction? |
| Reference: | Long, Z., Bruesewitz, M.R., DeLone, D.R., Morris, J.M., Amrami, K.K., Adkins, M.C., Glazebrook, K.N., Kofler, J.M., Leng, S., McCollough, C.H., Fletcher, J.G., Halaweish, A.F. and Yu, L. (2018), Evaluation of projection‐ and dual‐energy‐based methods for metal artifact reduction in CT using a phantom study. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 19: 252-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12347 |
| Choice A: | Dual energy CT can’t be used for metal artifact reduction |
| Choice B: | Dual energy CT can be used for metal artifact reduction by using low keV (e.g. 50 keV) virtual monoenergetic images |
| Choice C: | Dual energy CT always performs better than projection-based method in terms of metal artifact reduction |
| Choice D: | Dual energy CT approach can be combined with projection-based metal artifact reduction to achieve better performance |
