Literature DB >> 19436099

On the clinical spatial resolution achievable with protons and heavier charged particle radiotherapy beams.

Pedro Andreo1.   

Abstract

The 'sub-millimetre precision' often claimed to be achievable in protons and light ion beam therapy is analysed using the Monte Carlo code SHIELD-HIT for a broad range of energies. Based on the range of possible values and uncertainties of the mean excitation energy of water and human tissues, as well as of the composition of organs and tissues, it is concluded that precision statements deserve careful reconsideration for treatment planning purposes. It is found that the range of I-values of water stated in ICRU reports 37, 49 and 73 (1984, 1993 and 2005) for the collision stopping power formulae, namely 67 eV, 75 eV and 80 eV, yields a spread of the depth of the Bragg peak of protons and heavier charged particles (carbon ions) of up to 5 or 6 mm, which is also found to be energy dependent due to other energy loss competing interaction mechanisms. The spread is similar in protons and in carbon ions having analogous practical range. Although accurate depth-dose distribution measurements in water can be used at the time of developing empirical dose calculation models, the energy dependence of the spread causes a substantial constraint. In the case of in vivo human tissues, where distribution measurements are not feasible, the problem poses a major limitation. In addition to the spread due to the currently accepted uncertainties of their I-values, a spread of the depth of the Bragg peak due to the varying compositions of soft tissues is also demonstrated, even for cases which could be considered practically identical in clinical practice. For these, the spreads found were similar to those of water or even larger, providing support to international recommendations advising that body-tissue compositions should not be given the standing of physical constants. The results show that it would be necessary to increase the margins of a clinical target volume, even in the case of a water phantom, due to an 'intrinsic basic physics uncertainty', adding to those margins usually considered in normal clinical practice due to anatomical or therapeutic strategy reasons. Individualized patient determination of tissue composition along the complete beam path, rather than CT Hounsfield numbers alone, would also probably be required even to reach 'sub-centimetre precision'.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19436099     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/11/N01

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


  28 in total

1.  A linear, separable two-parameter model for dual energy CT imaging of proton stopping power computation.

Authors:  Dong Han; Jeffrey V Siebers; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Positron emission tomography imaging approaches for external beam radiation therapies: current status and future developments.

Authors:  P M Price; M M Green
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Experimental depth dose curves of a 67.5 MeV proton beam for benchmarking and validation of Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Bruce A Faddegon; Jungwook Shin; Carlos M Castenada; José Ramos-Méndez; Inder K Daftari
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications.

Authors:  J Perl; J Shin; J Schumann; B Faddegon; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Promise and pitfalls of heavy-particle therapy.

Authors:  Timur Mitin; Anthony L Zietman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Tissue decomposition from dual energy CT data for MC based dose calculation in particle therapy.

Authors:  Nora Hünemohr; Harald Paganetti; Steffen Greilich; Oliver Jäkel; Joao Seco
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Jaffee; Chi Van Dang; David B Agus; Brian M Alexander; Kenneth C Anderson; Alan Ashworth; Anna D Barker; Roshan Bastani; Sangeeta Bhatia; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Otis Brawley; Atul J Butte; Daniel G Coit; Nancy E Davidson; Mark Davis; Ronald A DePinho; Robert B Diasio; Giulio Draetta; A Lindsay Frazier; Andrew Futreal; Sam S Gambhir; Patricia A Ganz; Levi Garraway; Stanton Gerson; Sumit Gupta; James Heath; Ruth I Hoffman; Cliff Hudis; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Ramy Ibrahim; Hossein Jadvar; Brian Kavanagh; Rick Kittles; Quynh-Thu Le; Scott M Lippman; David Mankoff; Elaine R Mardis; Deborah K Mayer; Kelly McMasters; Neal J Meropol; Beverly Mitchell; Peter Naredi; Dean Ornish; Timothy M Pawlik; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Martin G Pomper; Derek Raghavan; Christine Ritchie; Sally W Schwarz; Richard Sullivan; Richard Wahl; Jedd D Wolchok; Sandra L Wong; Alfred Yung
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Proton tracking for medical imaging and dosimetry.

Authors:  J T Taylor; P P Allport; G L Casse; N A Smith; I Tsurin; N M Allinson; M Esposito; A Kacperek; J Nieto-Camero; T Price; C Waltham
Journal:  J Instrum       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 1.415

9.  A full-scale clinical prototype for proton range verification using prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy.

Authors:  Fernando Hueso-González; Moritz Rabe; Thomas A Ruggieri; Thomas Bortfeld; Joost M Verburg
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Site-specific range uncertainties caused by dose calculation algorithms for proton therapy.

Authors:  J Schuemann; S Dowdell; C Grassberger; C H Min; H Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.