Literature DB >> 17236979

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

Xiaodong Zhang1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the dosimetric impact of interfraction anatomic movements in prostate cancer patients receiving proton therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For each of the 10 patients studied, 8 computed tomography (CT) scans were selected from sets of daily setup CT images that were acquired from a cohort of prostate cancer patients. The images were acquired in the treatment room using the CT-on-rails system. First, standard proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were designed for each patient using standard modality-specific methods. The images, the proton plan, and the IMRT plan were then aligned to the eight CT images based on skin marks. The doses were recalculated on these eight CT images using beam from the standard plans. Second, the plans were redesigned and evaluated assuming a smaller clinical target volume to planning target volume margin (3 mm). The images and the corresponding plans were then realigned based on the center of volume of the prostate. Dose distributions were evaluated using isodose displays, dose-volume histograms, and target coverage.
RESULTS: For the skin-marker alignment method, 4 of the 10 IMRT plans were deficient, whereas 3 of 10 proton plans were compromised. For the alignment method based on the center of volume of the prostate, only the proton plan for 1 patient was deficient, whereas 3 of the 10 IMRT plans were suboptimal.
CONCLUSION: A comparison of passively scattered proton therapy and highly conformal IMRT plans for prostate cancer revealed that the dosimetric impact of interfractional anatomic motions was similar for both modalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17236979      PMCID: PMC1945214          DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  17 in total

1.  Intensity-modulated conformal radiation therapy and 3-dimensional treatment planning will significantly reduce the need for therapeutic approaches with particles such as protons.

Authors:  T R Mackie; A R Smith
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Use of deformed intensity distributions for on-line modification of image-guided IMRT to account for interfractional anatomic changes.

Authors:  Radhe Mohan; Xiaodong Zhang; He Wang; Yixiu Kang; Xiaochun Wang; Helen Liu; K Kian Ang; Deborah Kuban; Lei Dong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Radiotherapy for the future.

Authors:  Bleddyn Jones; Neil Burnet
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-04-30

4.  Adaptive radiation therapy.

Authors:  D Yan; F Vicini; J Wong; A Martinez
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Adaptive radiation therapy for compensation of errors in patient setup and treatment delivery.

Authors:  Henrik Rehbinder; Camilla Forsgren; Johan Löf
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Adaptive modification of treatment planning to minimize the deleterious effects of treatment setup errors.

Authors:  D Yan; J Wong; F Vicini; J Michalski; C Pan; A Frazier; E Horwitz; A Martinez
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1997-04-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer by CT-linear accelerator combination: prostate movements and dosimetric considerations.

Authors:  James R Wong; Lisa Grimm; Minoru Uematsu; Reva Oren; Chee Wai Cheng; Scott Merrick; Peter Schiff
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Conformal proton therapy for prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  J D Slater; L T Yonemoto; C J Rossi; N J Reyes-Molyneux; D A Bush; J E Antoine; L N Loredo; R W Schulte; S L Teichman; J M Slater
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1998-09-01       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Compensating for heterogeneities in proton radiation therapy.

Authors:  M Urie; M Goitein; M Wagner
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  The use of adaptive radiation therapy to reduce setup error: a prospective clinical study.

Authors:  D Yan; E Ziaja; D Jaffray; J Wong; D Brabbins; F Vicini; A Martinez
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1998-06-01       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  30 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

2.  Assessment of dose reconstruction errors in image-guided radiation therapy.

Authors:  Hualiang Zhong; Elisabeth Weiss; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  A Prospective Comparison of the Effects of Interfractional Variations on Proton Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Maryam Moteabbed; Alexei Trofimov; Gregory C Sharp; Yi Wang; Anthony L Zietman; Jason A Efstathiou; Hsiao-Ming Lu
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Monte Carlo calculation of imaging doses from diagnostic multidetector CT and kilovoltage cone-beam CT as part of prostate cancer treatment plans.

Authors:  Aiping Ding; Jianwei Gu; Alexei V Trofimov; X George Xu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning using single-field optimization: the impact of monitor unit constraints on plan quality.

Authors:  X R Zhu; N Sahoo; X Zhang; D Robertson; H Li; S Choi; A K Lee; M T Gillin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of interfractional anatomical variations on prostate proton therapy using daily in-room CT images.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Jason A Efstathiou; Gregory C Sharp; Hsiao-Ming Lu; I Frank Ciernik; Alexei V Trofimov
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Uncertainty incorporated beam angle optimization for IMPT treatment planning.

Authors:  Wenhua Cao; Gino J Lim; Andrew Lee; Yupeng Li; Wei Liu; X Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Assessment of the accuracy of an MCNPX-based Monte Carlo simulation model for predicting three-dimensional absorbed dose distributions.

Authors:  U Titt; N Sahoo; X Ding; Y Zheng; W D Newhauser; X R Zhu; J C Polf; M T Gillin; R Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 9.  Clinical controversies: proton therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kent W Mouw; Alexei Trofimov; Anthony L Zietman; Jason A Efstathiou
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 5.934

10.  Risk of secondary malignant neoplasms from proton therapy and intensity-modulated x-ray therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonas D Fontenot; Andrew K Lee; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 7.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.