Treatment Planning of Bulky Tumors Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton GRID Therapy

被引:3
|
作者
Halthore, Aditya [1 ,2 ]
Fellows, Zachary [2 ]
Tran, Anh [2 ]
Deville, Curtiland, Jr. [1 ,2 ]
Wright, Jean L. [1 ,2 ]
Meyer, Jeffrey [1 ]
Li, Heng [1 ,2 ]
Sheikh, Khadija [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Radiat Oncol & Mol Sci, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Proton Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Washington, DC USA
关键词
proton; spatial fractionation; GRID; bulky tumors; RADIATION-THERAPY;
D O I
10.14338/IJPT-22-00028
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare spatially fractionated radiation therapy (GRID) treatment planning techniques using proton pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) and photon therapy. Materials and Methods: PBS and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) GRID plans were retrospectively generated for 5 patients with bulky tumors. GRID targets were arranged along the long axis of the gross tumor, spaced 2 and 3 cm apart, and treated with a prescription of 18 Gy. PBS plans used 2- to 3-beam multiple-field optimization with robustness evaluation. Dosimetric parameters including peak-to-edge ratio (PEDR), ratio of dose to 90% of the valley to dose to 10% of the peak VPDR(D90/D10), and volume of normal tissue receiving at least 5 Gy (V5) and 10 Gy (V10) were calculated. The peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), VPDR(D90/D10), and organ-at-risk doses were prospectively assessed in 2 patients undergoing PBS-GRID with pretreatment quality assurance computed tomography (QACT) scans. Results: PBS and VMAT GRID plans were generated for 5 patients with bulky tumors. Gross tumor volume values ranged from 826 to 1468 cm3. Peak-to-edge ratio for PBS was higher than for VMAT for both spacing scenarios (2-cm spacing, P =.02; 3-cm spacing, P =.01). VPDR(D90/D10) for PBS was higher than for VMAT (2-cm spacing, P =.004; 3-cm spacing, P =.002). Normal tissue V5 was lower for PBS than for VMAT (2cm spacing, P =.03; 3-cm spacing, P =.02). Normal tissue mean dose was lower with PBS than with VMAT (2-cm spacing, P =.03; 3-cm spacing, P =.02). Two patients treated using PBS GRID and assessed with pretreatment QACT scans demonstrated robust PVDR, VPDR(D90/D10), and organs-at-risk doses. Conclusions: The PEDR was significantly higher for PBS than VMAT plans, indicating lower target edge dose. Normal tissue mean dose was significantly lower with PBS than VMAT. PBS GRID may result in lower normal tissue dose compared with VMAT plans, allowing for further dose escalation in patients with bulky disease.
引用
收藏
页码:40 / 49
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of dosimetries of carbon-ion pencil beam scanning, proton pencil beam scanning and volumetric modulated arc therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer
    Mori, Shinichiro
    Bhattacharyya, Tapesh
    Furuichi, Wataru
    Tohyama, Naoki
    Nomoto, Akihiro
    Shinoto, Makoto
    Takiyama, Hirotoshi
    Yamada, Shigeru
    JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2023, 64 (01) : 162 - 170
  • [32] Proton pencil beam scanning treatment with feedback based voluntary moderate breath hold
    Wang, Peng
    Tang, Shikui
    Leach, Karla
    Mangona, Victor
    Simone, Charles B., II
    Langen, Katja
    Chang, Chang
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2020, 45 (03) : E10 - E15
  • [33] Intrafraction tumor motion monitoring and dose reconstruction for liver pencil beam scanning proton therapy
    Nankali, Saber
    Worm, Esben Schjodt
    Thomsen, Jakob Borup
    Stick, Line Bjerregaard
    Bertholet, Jenny
    Hoyer, Morten
    Weber, Britta
    Mortensen, Hanna Rahbek
    Poulsen, Per Rugaard
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
  • [34] Tumour control and Quality of Life in children with rhabdomyosarcoma treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy
    Leiser, Dominic
    Calaminus, Gabriele
    Malyapa, Robert
    Bojaxhiu, Beat
    Albertini, Francesca
    Kliebsch, Ulrike
    Mikroutsikos, Lorentzos
    Morach, Petra
    Bolsi, Alessandra
    Walser, Marc
    Timmermann, Beate
    Lomax, Tony
    Schneider, Ralf
    Weber, Damien C.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 120 (01) : 163 - 168
  • [35] Commissioning of the world's first compact pencil-beam scanning proton therapy system
    Pidikiti, Rajesh
    Patel, Bijal C.
    Maynard, Matthew R.
    Dugas, Joseph P.
    Syh, Joseph
    Sahoo, Narayan
    Wu, Hsinshun Terry
    Rosen, Lane R.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 19 (01): : 94 - 105
  • [36] Absolute dosimetry for FLASH proton pencil beam scanning radiotherapy
    Lourenco, Ana
    Subiel, Anna
    Lee, Nigel
    Flynn, Sam
    Cotterill, John
    Shipley, David
    Romano, Francesco
    Speth, Joe
    Lee, Eunsin
    Zhang, Yongbin
    Xiao, Zhiyan
    Mascia, Anthony
    Amos, Richard A.
    Palmans, Hugo
    Thomas, Russell
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01)
  • [37] FLASH dose rate calculation based on log files in proton pencil beam scanning therapy
    Jeon, Chanil
    Ahn, Sunghwan
    Amano, Daizo
    Kamiguchi, Nagaaki
    Cho, Sungkoo
    Sheen, Heesoon
    Park, Hee Chul
    Han, Youngyih
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 50 (11) : 7154 - 7166
  • [38] Prostate Cancer Treatment with Pencil Beam Proton Therapy Using Rectal Spacers sans Endorectal Balloons
    Forsthoefel, Matthew
    Hankins, Ryan
    Ballew, Elizabeth
    Frame, Cara
    DeBlois, David
    Pang, Dalong
    Krishnan, Pranay
    Unger, Keith
    Kowalczyk, Keith
    Lynch, John
    Dritschilo, Anatoly
    Collins, Sean P.
    Lischalk, Jonathan W.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PARTICLE THERAPY, 2022, 9 (01) : 28 - 41
  • [39] GRID-ENABLED TREATMENT PLANNING FOR PROTON THERAPY USING MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS
    Vadapalli, Ravi
    Yepes, Pablo
    Newhauser, Wayne
    Lichti, Roger
    NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 175 (01) : 16 - 21
  • [40] Outcomes, Prognostic Factors and Salvage Treatment for Recurrent Chordoma After Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy at the Paul Scherrer Institute
    Beer, J.
    Kountouri, M.
    Kole, A. J.
    Murray, F. R.
    Leiser, D.
    Kliebsch, U.
    Combescure, C.
    Pica, A.
    Bachtiary, B.
    Bolsi, A.
    Lomax, A. J.
    Walser, M.
    Weber, D. C.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 32 (08) : 537 - 544