1
|
Tominaga Y, Sakurai Y, Miyata J, Harada S, Akagi T, Oita M. Validation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy with multi-leaf collimator calculated by a commercial Monte Carlo dose engine. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2022; 23:e13817. [PMID: 36420959 PMCID: PMC9797166 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13817] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 10/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical beam commissioning results and lateral penumbra characteristics of our new pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) calculated by use of a commercial Monte Carlo dose engine. Eighteen collimated uniform dose plans for cubic targets were optimized by the RayStation 9A treatment planning system (TPS), varying scan area, modulation widths, measurement depths, and collimator angles. To test the patient-specific measurements, we also created and verified five clinically realistic PBS plans with the MLC, such as the liver, prostate, base-of-skull, C-shape, and head-and-neck. The verification measurements consist of the depth dose (DD), lateral profile (LP), and absolute dose (AD). We compared the LPs and ADs between the calculation and measurements. For the cubic plans, the gamma index pass rates (γ-passing) were on average 96.5% ± 4.0% at 3%/3 mm for the DD and 95.2% ± 7.6% at 2%/2 mm for the LP. In several LP measurements less than 75 mm depths, the γ-passing deteriorated (increased the measured doses) by less than 90% with the scattering such as the MLC edge and range shifter. The deteriorated γ-passing was satisfied by more than 90% at 2%/2 mm using uncollimated beams instead of collimated beams except for three planes. The AD differences and the lateral penumbra width (80%-20% distance) were within ±1.9% and ± 1.1 mm, respectively. For the clinical plan measurements, the γ-passing of LP at 2%/2 mm and the AD differences were 97.7% ± 4.2% on average and within ±1.8%, respectively. The measurements were in good agreement with the calculations of both the cubic and clinical plans inserted in the MLC except for LPs less than 75 mm regions of some cubic and clinical plans. The calculation errors in collimated beams can be mitigated by substituting uncollimated beams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuki Tominaga
- Department of Radiotherapy, Medical Co. HakuhokaiOsaka Proton Therapy ClinicOsakaJapan,Division of Radiological TechnologyGraduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health SystemsOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan
| | - Yusuke Sakurai
- Department of Radiotherapy, Medical Co. HakuhokaiOsaka Proton Therapy ClinicOsakaJapan
| | - Junya Miyata
- Division of Radiological TechnologyGraduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health SystemsOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan,Department of Radiological technologyKurashiki Central HospitalOkayamaJapan
| | | | | | - Masataka Oita
- Division of Radiological TechnologyGraduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health SystemsOkayama UniversityOkayamaJapan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Holmes J, Shen J, Patel SH, Wong WW, Foote RL, Bues M, Liu W. Collimating individual beamlets in pencil beam scanning proton therapy, a dosimetric investigation. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1031340. [PMID: 36439436 PMCID: PMC9692234 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1031340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Accepted: 10/27/2022] [Indexed: 03/26/2024] Open
Abstract
The purpose of this work is to investigate collimating individual proton beamlets from a dosimetric perspective and to introduce a new device concept, the spot scanning aperture (SSA). The SSA consists of a thin aperture with a small cylindrical opening attached to a robotics system, which allows the aperture to follow and align with individual beamlets during spot delivery. Additionally, a range shifter is incorporated (source-side) for treating shallow depths. Since the SSA trims beamlets spot by spot, the patient-facing portion of the device only needs to be large enough to trim a single proton beamlet. The SSA has been modelled in an open-source Monte-Carlo-based dose engine (MCsquare) to characterize its dosimetric properties in water at depths between 0 and 10 cm while varying the following parameters: the aperture material, thickness, distance to the water phantom, distance between the aperture and attached range shifter, and the aperture opening radius. Overall, the SSA greatly reduced spot sizes for all the aperture opening radii that were tested (1 - 4 mm), especially in comparison with the extended range shifter (ranger shifter placed at 30 cm from patient); greater than 50% when placed less than 10 cm away from the patient at depths in water less than 50 mm. The peak to entrance dose ratio and linear energy transfer was found to depend on the thickness of the aperture and therefore the aperture material. Neutron production rates were also investigated and discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason Holmes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - Samir H. Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - William W. Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - Robert L. Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vidal M, Moignier C, Patriarca A, Sotiropoulos M, Schneider T, De Marzi L. Future technological developments in proton therapy - A predicted technological breakthrough. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:554-564. [PMID: 34272182 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
In the current spectrum of cancer treatments, despite high costs, a lack of robust evidence based on clinical outcomes or technical and radiobiological uncertainties, particle therapy and in particular proton therapy (PT) is rapidly growing. Despite proton therapy being more than fifty years old (first proposed by Wilson in 1946) and more than 220,000 patients having been treated with in 2020, many technological challenges remain and numerous new technical developments that must be integrated into existing systems. This article presents an overview of on-going technical developments and innovations that we felt were most important today, as well as those that have the potential to significantly shape the future of proton therapy. Indeed, efforts have been done continuously to improve the efficiency of a PT system, in terms of cost, technology and delivery technics, and a number of different developments pursued in the accelerator field will first be presented. Significant developments are also underway in terms of transport and spatial resolution achievable with pencil beam scanning, or conformation of the dose to the target: we will therefore discuss beam focusing and collimation issues which are important parameters for the development of these techniques, as well as proton arc therapy. State of the art and alternative approaches to adaptive PT and the future of adaptive PT will finally be reviewed. Through these overviews, we will finally see how advances in these different areas will allow the potential for robust dose shaping in proton therapy to be maximised, probably foreshadowing a future era of maturity for the PT technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Vidal
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, 227, avenue de la Lanterne, 06200 Nice, France
| | - C Moignier
- Centre François Baclesse, Department of Medical Physics, Centre de protonthérapie de Normandie, 14000 Caen, France
| | - A Patriarca
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France
| | - M Sotiropoulos
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - T Schneider
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - L De Marzi
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Institut Curie, PSL Research University, University Paris Saclay, Inserm LITO, Campus universitaire, 91898 Orsay, France.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Brandal P, Bergfeldt K, Aggerholm-Pedersen N, Bäckström G, Kerna I, Gubanski M, Björnlinger K, Evensen ME, Kuddu M, Pettersson E, Brydøy M, Hellebust TP, Dale E, Valdman A, Weber L, Høyer M. A Nordic-Baltic perspective on indications for proton therapy with strategies for identification of proper patients. Acta Oncol 2020; 59:1157-1163. [PMID: 32902341 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2020.1817977] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The beneficial effects of protons are primarily based on reduction of low to intermediate radiation dose bath to normal tissue surrounding the radiotherapy target volume. Despite promise for reduced long-term toxicity, the percentage of cancer patients treated with proton therapy remains low. This is probably caused by technical improvements in planning and delivery of photon therapy, and by high cost, low availability and lack of high-level evidence on proton therapy. A number of proton treatment facilities are under construction or have recently opened; there are now two operational Scandinavian proton centres and two more are under construction, thereby eliminating the availability hurdle. Even with the advantageous physical properties of protons, there is still substantial ambiguity and no established criteria related to which patients should receive proton therapy. This topic was discussed in a session at the Nordic Collaborative Workshop on Particle Therapy, held in Uppsala 14-15 November 2019. This paper resumes the Nordic-Baltic perspective on proton therapy indications and discusses strategies to identify patients for proton therapy. As for indications, neoplastic entities, target volume localisation, size, internal motion, age, second cancer predisposition, dose escalation and treatment plan comparison based on the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle or normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were discussed. Importantly, the patient selection process should be integrated into the radiotherapy community and emphasis on collaboration across medical specialties, involvement of key decision makers and knowledge dissemination in general are important factors. An active Nordic-Baltic proton therapy organisation would also serve this purpose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Petter Brandal
- Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Section for Cancer Cytogenetics, Institute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | | | | | | | - Irina Kerna
- North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia
| | | | | | | | - Maire Kuddu
- North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia
| | | | | | - Taran P. Hellebust
- Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Einar Dale
- Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | | | | | - Morten Høyer
- Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
De Marzi L, Patriarca A, Scher N, Thariat J, Vidal M. Exploiting the full potential of proton therapy: An update on the specifics and innovations towards spatial or temporal optimisation of dose delivery. Cancer Radiother 2020; 24:691-698. [PMID: 32753235 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2020.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 06/07/2020] [Accepted: 06/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Prescription and delivery of protons are somewhat different compared to photons and may influence outcomes (tumour control and toxicity). These differences should be taken into account to fully exploit the clinical potential of proton therapy. Innovations in proton therapy treatment are also required to widen the therapeutic window and determine appropriate populations of patients that would benefit from new treatments. Therefore, strategies are now being developed to reduce side effects to critical normal tissues using alternative treatment configurations and new spatial or temporal-driven optimisation approaches. Indeed, spatiotemporal optimisation (based on flash, proton minibeam radiation therapy or hypofractionated delivery methods) has been gaining some attention in proton therapy as a mean of improving (biological and physical) dose distribution. In this short review, the main differences in planning and delivery between protons and photons, as well as some of the latest developments and methodological issues (in silico modelling) related to providing scientific evidence for these new techniques will be discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L De Marzi
- Institut Curie, centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Université PSL (Paris Sciences & Lettres), 60, rue Mazarine, 75006 Paris, France; Université Paris-Saclay, route de l'Orme-aux-Merisiers, RD 128, 91190 Saint-Aubin, France; Inserm U1021, centre universitaire, bâtiment 110, rue Henri-Becquerel, 91405 Orsay cedex, France; CNRS, UMR 3347, centre universitaire, bâtiment 110, rue Henri-Becquerel, 91405 Orsay cedex, France.
| | - A Patriarca
- Institut Curie, centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Université PSL (Paris Sciences & Lettres), 60, rue Mazarine, 75006 Paris, France
| | - N Scher
- Institut Curie, centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Université PSL (Paris Sciences & Lettres), 60, rue Mazarine, 75006 Paris, France
| | - J Thariat
- Service de radiothérapie oncologique, centre François-Baclesse, 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Laboratoire de physique corpusculaire de Caen, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; Institut national de physique nucléaire et physique des particules (IN2P3), 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; EnsiCaen, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; CNRS, UMR6534, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; Unicaen, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; Normandie Université, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France
| | - M Vidal
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, 33, avenue Valombrose, 06000 Nice, France
| |
Collapse
|