Particle Radiotherapy in the UK

Modelling the throughput capacity of a single-accelerator multitreatment room proton therapy centre

OBJECTIVE

We describe a model for evaluating the throughput capacity of a single-accelerator multitreatment room proton therapy centre with the aims of (1) providing quantitative estimates of the throughput and waiting times and (2) providing insight into the sensitivity of the system to various physical parameters.

METHODS

A Monte Carlo approach was used to compute various statistics about the modelled centre, including the throughput capacity, fraction times for different groups of patients and beam waiting times. A method of quantifying the saturation level is also demonstrated.

RESULTS

Benchmarking against the MD Anderson Cancer Center showed good agreement between the modelled (140 ± 4 fractions per day) and reported (133 ± 35 fractions per day) throughputs. A sensitivity analysis of that system studied the impact of beam switch time, the number of treatment rooms, patient set-up times and the potential benefit of having a second accelerator. Finally, scenarios relevant to a potential UK facility were studied, finding that a centre with the same four-room, single-accelerator configuration as the MD Anderson Cancer Center but handling a more complex UK-type caseload would have a throughput reduced by approximately 19%, but still be capable of treating in excess of 100 fractions per 16-h treatment day.

CONCLUSIONS

The model provides a useful tool to aid in understanding the operating dynamics of a proton therapy facility, and for investigating potential scenarios for prospective centres.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The model helps to identify which technical specifications should be targeted for future improvements.

Modelling carcinogenesis after radiotherapy using Poisson statistics: implications for IMRT, protons and ions

Current technical radiotherapy advances aim to (a) better conform the dose contours to cancers and (b) reduce the integral dose exposure and thereby minimise unnecessary dose exposure to normal tissues unaffected by the cancer. Various types of conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using x-rays can achieve (a) while charged particle therapy (CPT)-using proton and ion beams-can achieve both (a) and (b), but at greater financial cost. Not only is the long term risk of radiation related normal tissue complications important, but so is the risk of carcinogenesis. Physical dose distribution plans can be generated to show the differences between the above techniques. IMRT is associated with a dose bath of low to medium dose due to fluence transfer: dose is effectively transferred from designated organs at risk to other areas; thus dose and risk are transferred. Many clinicians are concerned that there may be additional carcinogenesis many years after IMRT. CPT reduces the total energy deposition in the body and offers many potential advantages in terms of the prospects for better quality of life along with cancer cure. With C ions there is a tail of dose beyond the Bragg peaks, due to nuclear fragmentation; this is not found with protons. CPT generally uses higher linear energy transfer (which varies with particle and energy), which carries a higher relative risk of malignant induction, but also of cell death quantified by the relative biological effect concept, so at higher dose levels the frank development of malignancy should be reduced. Standard linear radioprotection models have been used to show a reduction in carcinogenesis risk of between two- and 15-fold depending on the CPT location. But the standard risk models make no allowance for fractionation and some have a dose limit at 4 Gy. Alternatively, tentative application of the linear quadratic model and Poissonian statistics to chromosome breakage and cell kill simultaneously allows estimation of relative changes in carcinogenesis that incorporate fractionation and relative biological effects (RBE). This alternative modelling approach allows absolute and relative risk estimations per cell and can be extended to tissues. The classical turnover point in carcinogenesis occurring after a single exposure is a feature of the model; also, the dose-response relationship becomes pseudo-linear with extended fractionation and when heterogeneity of the radiosensitivity parameters is introduced; there is also an inverse relationship between dose per fraction and cancer induction. In principle, this new approach might influence the conduct of proton and ion beam therapy, particularly beam placements and fractionation policies. The theoretical implications for future radiotherapy are considerable, but these predictions should be subjected to cellular and tissue experiments that simulate these forms of treatment, including any secondary neutron production in some cases depending on the beam delivery technique, e.g. in tissue equivalent humanoid phantoms using cell transformation techniques. Since the UK has no working high energy particle beam facility over 100 MeV, British scientists would require use of particle beam facilities in Europe, USA or Japan to perform experiments.

The potential clinical advantages of charged particle radiotherapy using protons or light ions

The increasing use of charged particle radiotherapy (CPT) in many countries will require British oncologists to establish their personal viewpoints on this subject in order to advise their patients regarding the merits or otherwise of obtaining such treatment abroad. This paper covers the advantages and some disadvantages of CPT in many anatomical locations on the basis of the achievable dose distributions as a consequence of the Bragg peak effect. The advantages in terms of normal tissue effects should follow the reduction of tissue volumes exposed to low/moderate dose: significant reductions in acute tissue effects are expected and experienced. For late reacting tissues, the predicted benefits are in the reduction of chronic low-grade symptoms and so improving the quality of life. For tumour control, dose escalation beyond what is achievable with X-ray therapy is possible only for some tumour types. Also, some tumours not presently treated by X-rays can be treated by CPT instead of radical surgery. Many of the available publications about CPT are at 'proof of principle' stage, as the treatment technique continues to be optimised: this is a similar situation to mega-voltage radiotherapy around 50 years ago. Oncologists in the UK need to familiarise themselves with CPT dose distributions, continually educate themselves by following the results of clinical studies as these emerge with time and hopefully visit CPT centres for direct experience.