Literature DB >> 15462415

The clinical potential of intensity modulated proton therapy.

Antony J Lomax1, Eros Pedroni, Hanspeter Rutz, Gudrun Goitein.   

Abstract

Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) differs from conventional proton therapy in its ability to deliver depth-shifted, arbitrarily complex proton fluence maps from each incident field direction. As the individual Bragg peaks delivered from any field can be distributed in three-dimensions throughout the target volume, IMPT provides many more degrees of freedom for designing dose distributions than IMRT or conventional proton therapy techniques. So how can the flexibility of IMPT best be exploited? Here we argue that IMPT has two main advantages over photon IMRT and conventional proton therapy: the ability to better 'sculpt' the dose to the target and around neighbouring critical structures, and the ability to find clinically acceptable solutions whilst simultaneously reducing the sensitivity of the treatments to potential delivery errors. The concept of IMPT as a tool for generating 'safer' plans opens an interesting new avenue of research from the point of view of plan optimisation, the potential of which is only just beginning to be explored.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15462415     DOI: 10.1078/0939-3889-00217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Z Med Phys        ISSN: 0939-3889            Impact factor:   4.820


  50 in total

1.  Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Xiaodong Zhang; Yupeng Li; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Yupeng Li; Xiaoqiang Li; Wenhua Cao; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

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.  Clinical characterization of a proton beam continuous uniform scanning system with dose layer stacking.

Authors:  J B Farr; A E Mascia; W C Hsi; C E Allgower; F Jesseph; A N Schreuder; M Wolanski; D F Nichiporov; V Anferov
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  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

Review 6.  Treatment planning optimisation in proton therapy.

Authors:  S E McGowan; N G Burnet; A J Lomax
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Steven J Frank; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; Ron X Zhu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 8.  Proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer-is the hype (and the cost) justified?

Authors:  Phillip J Gray; Jason A Efstathiou
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Proton therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current knowledges and future perspectives.

Authors:  Gyu Sang Yoo; Jeong Il Yu; Hee Chul Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Density overwrites of internal tumor volumes in intensity modulated proton therapy plans for mobile lung tumors.

Authors:  Pablo Botas; Clemens Grassberger; Gregory Sharp; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.