Literature DB >> 14529304

Treatment planning for conformal proton radiation therapy.

Mark R Bussière1, Judith A Adams.   

Abstract

Clinical results from various trials have demonstrated the viability of protons in radiation therapy and radiosurgery. This has motivated a few large medical centers to design and build expensive hospital based proton facilities based proton facilities (current cost estimates for a proton facility is around 100 million US dollars). Until this development proton therapy was done using retrofitted equipment originally designed for nuclear experiments. There are presently only three active proton therapy centers in the United States, 22 worldwide. However, more centers are under construction and being proposed in the US and abroad. The important difference between proton and x-ray therapy is in the dose distribution. X-rays deposit most of their dose at shallow depths of a few centimeters with a gradual decay with depth in the patient. Protons deliver most of their dose in the Bragg peak, which can be delivered at most clinically required depths followed by a sharp fall-off. This sharp falloff makes protons sensitive to variations in treatment depths within patients. Treatment planning incorporates all the knowledge of protons into a process, which allows patients to be treated accurately and reliably. This process includes patient immobilization, imaging, targeting, and modeling of planned dose distributions. Although the principles are similar to x-ray therapy some significant differences exist in the planning process, which described in this paper. Target dose conformality has recently taken on much momentum with the advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with photon beams. Proton treatments provide a viable alternative to IMRT because they are inherently conformal avoiding normal tissue while irradiating the intended targets. Proton therapy will soon bring conformality to a new high with the development of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Future challenges include keeping the cost down, increasing access to conventional proton therapy as well as the clinical implementation of IMPT. Computing advances are making Monte Carlo techniques more accessible to treatment planning for all modalities including proton therapy. This technique will allow complex delivery configurations to be properly modeled in a clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14529304     DOI: 10.1177/153303460300200504

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 1533-0338


  13 in total

1.  Visualization of a variety of possible dosimetric outcomes in radiation therapy using dose-volume histogram bands.

Authors:  Alexei Trofimov; Jan Unkelbach; Thomas F DeLaney; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-09-09

Review 2.  Robust Proton Treatment Planning: Physical and Biological Optimization.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.934

3.  Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison.

Authors:  Alexei Trofimov; Paul L Nguyen; John J Coen; Karen P Doppke; Robert J Schneider; Judith A Adams; Thomas R Bortfeld; Anthony L Zietman; Thomas F Delaney; William U Shipley
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-05-21       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Thomas Bortfeld; Benjamin C Martin; Martin Soukup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Proton radiotherapy: the biological effect of treating alternating subsets of fields for different treatment fractions.

Authors:  Martijn Engelsman; Thomas F DeLaney; Theodore S Hong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 6.  Proton beam therapy following resection for childhood ependymoma.

Authors:  Shannon M MacDonald; Torunn I Yock
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2009-12-19       Impact factor: 1.475

7.  Dosimetric accuracy of proton therapy for chordoma patients with titanium implants.

Authors:  Joost M Verburg; Joao Seco
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Interfractional variations in the setup of pelvic bony anatomy and soft tissue, and their implications on the delivery of proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Alexei Trofimov; Paul L Nguyen; Jason A Efstathiou; Yi Wang; Hsiao-Ming Lu; Martijn Engelsman; Scott Merrick; Chee-Wai Cheng; James R Wong; Anthony L Zietman
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  The rationale for intensity-modulated proton therapy in geometrically challenging cases.

Authors:  S Safai; A Trofimov; J A Adams; M Engelsman; T Bortfeld
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Proton radiotherapy for chest wall and regional lymphatic radiation; dose comparisons and treatment delivery.

Authors:  Shannon M MacDonald; Rachel Jimenez; Peter Paetzold; Judith Adams; Jonathan Beatty; Thomas F DeLaney; Hanne Kooy; Alphonse G Taghian; Hsiao-Ming Lu
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.