Study on Treatment Planning for the Prostate in Proton Therapy with Oxygen Enhancement Ratio Effect

被引:0
作者
Seung Hoon Yoo
Hui Geng
Wai Wang Lam
Chi Wah Kong
Bin Yang
Tin Lok Chiu
Po Man Wu
Kin Yin Cheung
Siu Ki Yu
Dongho Shin
Byung Jun Min
机构
[1] Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital,Medical Physics and Research Department
[2] National Cancer Center,Proton Therapy Center
[3] Chungbuk National University Hospital,Department of Radiation Oncology
来源
Journal of the Korean Physical Society | 2020年 / 77卷
关键词
OER; Proton therapy; Average model; Voxel model;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The purpose of this study was to investigate the oxygen enhancement ratio (OER) effects on treatment planning for a hypoxic prostate tumor with proton scanning beams. Two different OER-based dose calculation models (the average model and the voxel model) were investigated by using hypoxic tumor models in this simulation study. For the hypoxic tumor model, an oxygen distribution with a range of 2.4–9.4 mmHg was used according to the clinical data. The results given by the average model and the voxel model were compared for 50% and 90% tumor control probabilities with variations in the hypoxic tumor volume and fractionation. Comparison between the treatment plans with OER-based higher predicted dose and with the conventional prescription dose was conducted to investigate the organ-at-risk (OAR) doses for the prostate case. The average model showed a higher calculated dose than the voxel model. The voxel model with a 50% control probability showed good agreement with the current prescription dose. The OER values of the average model ranged from 1.05 to 1.25, which were applied to the whole tumor volume in treatment planning. The voxel-model-based OERs were higher (1.50–1.75) than those of average model, and these OERs should be applied only for the hypoxic boost region. Regarding treatment plans, the doses of the rectum and the bladder were reduced to the tolerable range V80Gy (volume receiving equal to or greater than 80Gy) < 15% and V75Gy (volume receiving equal to or greater than 75Gy) < 15% respectively after an optimization, but the maximum dose to femoral heads was higher than 50 Gy. In conclusion, we investigated the possible ranges of the OER (1.3–1.8) for proton-beam treatment of prostate cases. A dose escalation of up to about 1.8 times can be applied for the small hypoxic region. This result, which was obtained using a model study, should be verified through clinical experiment.
引用
收藏
页码:613 / 623
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] FRED: a fast MC tool for treatment planning and dose verification in proton therapy
    Battistoni, G.
    Ciocca, M.
    Magro, G.
    Mairani, A.
    Molinelli, S.
    Patera, V.
    Pioli, S.
    Schiavi, A.
    Senzacqua, M.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 118 : S82 - S83
  • [22] Proton versus photon therapy for high-risk prostate cancer with dose escalation of dominant intraprostatic lesions: a preliminary planning study
    Ong, Ashley Li Kuan
    Knight, Kellie
    Panettieri, Vanessa
    Dimmock, Mathew
    Tuan, Jeffrey Kit Loong
    Tan, Hong Qi
    Wright, Caroline
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
  • [23] Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging derived synthetic computed tomography for proton therapy planning in prostate cancer
    Fridstrom, Kajsa M. L.
    Winter, Rene M.
    Hornik, Natalie
    Almberg, Sigrun S.
    Danielsen, Signe
    Redalen, Kathrine R.
    [J]. PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2024, 31
  • [24] Using CBCT for pretreatment range check in proton therapy: a phantom study for prostate treatment by anterior-posterior beam
    Bentefour, El Hassane
    Both, Stefan
    Tang, Shikui
    Lu, Hsiao-Ming
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (06): : 472 - 483
  • [25] Reducing the Cost of Proton Radiation Therapy: The Feasibility of a Streamlined Treatment Technique for Prostate Cancer
    Newhauser, Wayne D.
    Zhang, Rui
    Jones, Timothy G.
    Giebeler, Annelise
    Taddei, Phillip J.
    Stewart, Robert D.
    Lee, Andrew
    Vassiliev, Oleg
    [J]. CANCERS, 2015, 7 (02): : 688 - 705
  • [26] Proton therapy of uveal melanomas - Intercomparison of MRI-based and conventional treatment planning
    Marnitz, Simone
    Cordini, Dino
    Bendl, Rolf
    Lemke, Arne-Jorn
    Heufelder, Jens
    Simiantonakis, Ioannis
    Kluge, Heinz
    Bechrakis, Nikolaos E.
    Foersters, Michael H.
    Hinkelbein, Wolfgang
    [J]. STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2006, 182 (07) : 395 - 399
  • [27] Minimizing treatment planning errors in proton therapy using failure mode and effects analysis
    Zheng, Yuanshui
    Johnson, Randall
    Larson, Gary
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 43 (06) : 2904 - 2910
  • [28] Implementation of an analytical solution to lateral dose prediction in a proton therapy treatment planning system
    Bellinzona, E. V.
    Landry, G.
    Fontana, A.
    Embriaco, A.
    Resch, A.
    Ciocca, M.
    Ferrari, A.
    Kamp, F.
    Mairani, A.
    Sala, P.
    Tessonnier, T.
    Wilkens, J.
    Rotondi, A.
    Parodi, K.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2016, 118 : S8 - S9
  • [29] Accounting for prompt gamma emission and detection for range verification in proton therapy treatment planning
    Tian, Liheng
    Huang, Ze
    Janssens, Guillaume
    Landry, Guillaume
    Dedes, George
    Kamp, Florian
    Belka, Claus
    Pinto, Marco
    Parodi, Katia
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2021, 66 (05)
  • [30] A computational implementation and comparison of several intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning algorithms
    Li, Haisen S.
    Romeijn, H. Edwin
    Fox, Christopher
    Palta, Jatinder R.
    Dempsey, James F.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (03) : 1103 - 1112