Literature DB >> 19291975

Maximum proton kinetic energy and patient-generated neutron fluence considerations in proton beam arc delivery radiation therapy.

E Sengbusch1, A Pérez-Andújar, P M DeLuca, T R Mackie.   

Abstract

Several compact proton accelerator systems for use in proton therapy have recently been proposed. Of paramount importance to the development of such an accelerator system is the maximum kinetic energy of protons, immediately prior to entry into the patient, that must be reached by the treatment system. The commonly used value for the maximum kinetic energy required for a medical proton accelerator is 250 MeV, but it has not been demonstrated that this energy is indeed necessary to treat all or most patients eligible for proton therapy. This article quantifies the maximum kinetic energy of protons, immediately prior to entry into the patient, necessary to treat a given percentage of patients with rotational proton therapy, and examines the impact of this energy threshold on the cost and feasibility of a compact, gantry-mounted proton accelerator treatment system. One hundred randomized treatment plans from patients treated with IMRT were analyzed. The maximum radiological pathlength from the surface of the patient to the distal edge of the treatment volume was obtained for 180 degrees continuous arc proton therapy and for 180 degrees split arc proton therapy (two 90 degrees arcs) using CT# profiles from the Pinnacle (Philips Medical Systems, Madison, WI) treatment planning system. In each case, the maximum kinetic energy of protons, immediately prior to entry into the patient, that would be necessary to treat the patient was calculated using proton range tables for various media. In addition, Monte Carlo simulations were performed to quantify neutron production in a water phantom representing a patient as a function of the maximum proton kinetic energy achievable by a proton treatment system. Protons with a kinetic energy of 240 MeV, immediately prior to entry into the patient, were needed to treat 100% of patients in this study. However, it was shown that 90% of patients could be treated at 198 MeV, and 95% of patients could be treated at 207 MeV. Decreasing the proton kinetic energy from 250 to 200 MeV decreases the total neutron energy fluence produced by stopping a monoenergetic pencil beam in a water phantom by a factor of 2.3. It is possible to significantly lower the requirements on the maximum kinetic energy of a compact proton accelerator if the ability to treat a small percentage of patients with rotational therapy is sacrificed. This decrease in maximum kinetic energy, along with the corresponding decrease in neutron production, could lower the cost and ease the engineering constraints on a compact proton accelerator treatment facility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19291975      PMCID: PMC2736729          DOI: 10.1118/1.3049787

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  21 in total

1.  Combined X-Y scanning magnet for conformal proton radiation therapy.

Authors:  Vladimir Anferov
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Virtual commissioning of a treatment planning system for proton therapy of ocular cancers.

Authors:  N Koch; W Newhauser
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 3.  Proton therapy.

Authors:  Alfred R Smith
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Design tools for proton therapy nozzles based on the double-scattering foil technique.

Authors:  J D Fontenot; W D Newhauser; U Titt
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  Within the next decade conventional cyclotrons for proton radiotherapy will become obsolete and replaced by far less expensive machines using compact laser systems for the acceleration of the protons.

Authors:  Chang-Ming Charlie Ma; Richard L Maughan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Monte Carlo simulations for configuring and testing an analytical proton dose-calculation algorithm.

Authors:  Wayne Newhauser; Jonas Fontenot; Yuanshui Zheng; Jerimy Polf; Uwe Titt; Nicholas Koch; Xiaodong Zhang; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Point/counterpoint. Proton therapy is too expensive for the minimal potential improvements in outcome claimed.

Authors:  Robert J Schulz; Alfred R Smith; Colin G Orton
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Shielding variation effects for 250 MeV protons on tissue targets.

Authors:  A Brandl; C Hranitzky; S Rollet
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  Monte Carlo simulation of a protontherapy platform devoted to ocular melanoma.

Authors:  J Hérault; N Iborra; B Serrano; P Chauvel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Preclinical biologic assessment of proton beam relative biologic effectiveness at Proton Therapy Center Houston.

Authors:  Kathryn A Mason; Michael T Gillin; Radhe Mohan; James D Cox
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-05-23       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  6 in total

1.  Risk of radiogenic second cancers following volumetric modulated arc therapy and proton arc therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laura A Rechner; Rebecca M Howell; Rui Zhang; Carol Etzel; Andrew K Lee; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Is there a role for arcing techniques in proton therapy?

Authors:  Alejandro Carabe-Fernandez; Alejandro Bertolet-Reina; Ilias Karagounis; Kiet Huynh; Roger G Dale
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  The physics of proton therapy.

Authors:  Wayne D Newhauser; Rui Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Impact of margin size on the predicted risk of radiogenic second cancers following proton arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laura A Rechner; Rebecca M Howell; Rui Zhang; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Maximum kinetic energy considerations in proton stereotactic radiosurgery.

Authors:  Evan R Sengbusch; Thomas R Mackie
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 6.  Biological and Mechanical Synergies to Deal With Proton Therapy Pitfalls: Minibeams, FLASH, Arcs, and Gantryless Rooms.

Authors:  Alejandro Mazal; Juan Antonio Vera Sanchez; Daniel Sanchez-Parcerisa; Jose Manuel Udias; Samuel España; Victor Sanchez-Tembleque; Luis Mario Fraile; Paloma Bragado; Alvaro Gutierrez-Uzquiza; Nuria Gordillo; Gaston Garcia; Juan Castro Novais; Juan Maria Perez Moreno; Lina Mayorga Ortiz; Amaia Ilundain Idoate; Marta Cremades Sendino; Carme Ares; Raymond Miralbell; Niek Schreuder
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 6.244

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.