Literature DB >> 16510958

Margins for treatment planning of proton therapy.

Simon J Thomas1.   

Abstract

For protons and other charged particles, the effect of set-up errors on the position of isodoses is considerably less in the direction of the incident beam than it is laterally. Therefore, the margins required between the clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) can be less in the direction of the incident beam than laterally. Margins have been calculated for a typical head plan and a typical prostate plan, for a single field, a parallel opposed and a four-field arrangement of protons, and compared with margins calculated for photons, assuming identical geometrical uncertainties for each modality. In the head plan, where internal motion was assumed negligible, the CTV-PTV margin reduced from approximately 10 mm to 3 mm in the axial direction for the single field and parallel opposed plans. For a prostate plan, where internal motion cannot be ignored, the corresponding reduction in margin was from 11 mm to 7 mm. The planning organ at risk (PRV) margin in the axial direction reduced from 6 mm to 2 mm for the head plan, and from 7 mm to 4 mm for the prostate plan. No reduction was seen on the other axes, or for any axis of the four-field plans. Owing to the shape of proton dose distributions, there are many clinical cases in which good dose distributions can be obtained with one or two fields. When this is done, it is possible to use smaller PTV and PRV margins. This has the potential to convert untreatable cases, in which the PTV and PRV overlap, into cases with a gap between PTV and PRV of adequate size for treatment planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16510958     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/6/009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  8 in total

1.  PET/CT-guided treatment planning for paediatric cancer patients: a simulation study of proton and conventional photon therapy.

Authors:  J S Kornerup; N P Brodin; T Björk-Eriksson; C Birk Christensen; A Kiil-Berthelsen; M C Aznar; C Hollensen; E Markova; P Munck Af Rosenschöld
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  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

3.  The effects of Doppler broadening and detector resolution on the performance of three-stage Compton cameras.

Authors:  Dennis Mackin; Jerimy Polf; Steve Peterson; Sam Beddar
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Effect of anatomic motion on proton therapy dose distributions in prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  Xiaodong Zhang; Lei Dong; Andrew K Lee; James D Cox; Deborah A Kuban; Ron X Zhu; Xiaochun Wang; Yupeng Li; Wayne D Newhauser; Michael Gillin; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 5.  Adaptive proton therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Pablo Botas; Gregory C Sharp; Brian Winey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Technical Design Report for a Carbon-11 Treatment Facility.

Authors:  Liviu Penescu; Thierry Stora; Simon Stegemann; Johanna Pitters; Elisa Fiorina; Ricardo Dos Santos Augusto; Claus Schmitzer; Fredrik Wenander; Katia Parodi; Alfredo Ferrari; Thomas E Cocolios
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-04-25

7.  A patient-specific planning target volume used in 'plan of the day' adaptation for interfractional motion mitigation.

Authors:  Wenjing Chen; Alexander Gemmel; Eike Rietzel
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.724

Review 8.  Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Darren M C Poon; Stephen Wu; Leon Ho; Kin Yin Cheung; Ben Yu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-13       Impact factor: 6.639

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.