Literature DB >> 21098920

Dosimetric accuracy of planning and delivering small proton therapy fields.

Bryan Bednarz1, Juliane Daartz, Harald Paganetti.   

Abstract

A detailed Monte Carlo model of a proton therapy treatment head was commissioned to simulate the delivery of small field proton treatments. Small fields are challenging in the planning and quality assurance process because of aperture scattering and dosimetric disequilibrium. Four patients with small fields used in all or parts of their treatment course were studied, including two stereotactic patients and two fractionated patients. For the two stereotactic patients the overall difference of the dose covering at least 95% of the gross tumor volume between the Monte Carlo calculations and the delivery was -0.2% and -1.6%, respectively. For the two fractionated patients the overall difference of the dose covering at least 95% of the clinical target volume was -3.0% and 1.0%, respectively. We have thus confirmed that our current planning and delivery process for small proton fields is accurate enough to treat small lesions in the patient. Furthermore, we studied the impact of field size corrections and identified limitations of the pencil beam algorithm for predicting hot and cold spots and range degradation in the target due scattering in heterogeneities. For the four cases studied in this paper, these limitations appear to impact individual field calculations, but do not have a significant impact on the prescribed dose over multiple fields.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21098920      PMCID: PMC3376899          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/24/003

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


  14 in total

1.  Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions.

Authors:  W Schneider; T Bortfeld; W Schlegel
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Monitor unit calculations for range-modulated spread-out Bragg peak fields.

Authors:  Hanne M Kooy; Matthew Schaefer; Skip Rosenthal; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-09-07       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Accurate Monte Carlo simulations for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance for a proton radiation therapy facility.

Authors:  H Paganetti; H Jiang; S Y Lee; H M Kooy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Adaptation of GEANT4 to Monte Carlo dose calculations based on CT data.

Authors:  H Jiang; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  The prediction of output factors for spread-out proton Bragg peak fields in clinical practice.

Authors:  Hanne M Kooy; Stanley J Rosenthal; Martijn Engelsman; Alejandro Mazal; Roelf L Slopsema; Harald Paganetti; Jacob B Flanz
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Determination of output factors for small proton therapy fields.

Authors:  Jonas D Fontenot; Wayne D Newhauser; Charles Bloch; R Allen White; Uwe Titt; George Starkschall
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Monte Carlo investigation of collimator scatter of proton-therapy beams produced using the passive scattering method.

Authors:  Uwe Titt; Yuanshui Zheng; Oleg N Vassiliev; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Dose to water versus dose to medium in proton beam therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Commissioning a passive-scattering proton therapy nozzle for accurate SOBP delivery.

Authors:  M Engelsman; H M Lu; D Herrup; M Bussiere; H M Kooy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Clinical implementation of full Monte Carlo dose calculation in proton beam therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Hongyu Jiang; Katia Parodi; Roelf Slopsema; Martijn Engelsman
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  11 in total

1.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Approximations in Analytical Dose Calculations for Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Jan Schuemann; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Clemens Grassberger; Maryam Moteabbed; Chul Hee Min; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 2.  The physics of proton therapy.

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

3.  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

4.  Feasibility of using PRESAGE® for relative 3D dosimetry of small proton fields.

Authors:  Li Zhao; Joseph Newton; Mark Oldham; Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; John Adamovics
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Murine-specific Internal Dosimetry for Preclinical Investigations of Imaging and Therapeutic Agents.

Authors:  Bryan Bednarz; Joseph Grudzinski; Ian Marsh; Abby Besemer; Dana Baiu; Jamey Weichert; Mario Otto
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 6.  Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Anteriorly Oriented Beam Arrangements with Daily in Vivo Range Verification for Proton Therapy of Prostate Cancer: Rectal Toxicity Rates.

Authors:  Jerimy C Polf; Michael Chuong; Bin Zhang; Minesh Mehta
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2016-03-24

8.  Is an analytical dose engine sufficient for intensity modulated proton therapy in lung cancer?

Authors:  Suliana Teoh; Francesca Fiorini; Ben George; Katherine A Vallis; Frank Van den Heuvel
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 3.629

9.  Experimental Assessment of Proton Dose Calculation Accuracy in Small-Field Delivery Using a Mevion S250 Proton Therapy System.

Authors:  Kyle D DePew; Salahuddin Ahmad; Hosang Jin
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

10.  Technique for sparing previously irradiated critical normal structures in salvage proton craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Mark W McDonald; Mark R Wolanski; Joseph W Simmons; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-01-12       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.