Literature DB >> 22129564

A treatment planning comparison of passive-scattering and intensity-modulated proton therapy for typical tumor sites.

Yuki Kase1, Haruo Yamashita, Hiroshi Fuji, Yuichi Yamamoto, Yuehu Pu, Chihiro Tsukishima, Shigeyuki Murayama.   

Abstract

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is expected to improve treatment results with fewer side effects than other proton therapies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tumor sites for which IMPT was effective under the same beam calculation conditions by planning IMPT for typical cases treated with passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT). We selected 16 cases of nasal cavity, lung, liver or prostate cancers as typical tumor sites receiving PSPT. The dose distributions and dose volume histograms optimized by the IMPT were compared with those optimized by the PSPT. We took particular note of the doses to the skin and organs at risk (OAR) when PSPT was replaced by IMPT. Furthermore, an improvement of the beam angles was also performed to obtain better dose distributions in the IMPT. The IMPT with the same beam angles resulted in near-maximum doses to the skin of average 78%, 64%, 84% and 99% of the PSPT doses for nasal cavity, lung, liver, and prostate cancers, respectively. However, it was difficult to improve the dose homogeneity of the target volume. The change of the IMPT beam angles could reduce the doses to OARs and skin in the case of the nasal cavity, while it had limited effect in the other cases. We concluded that IMPT was effective for reducing the doses to some OARs when treating nasal cavity, lung, liver and prostate cancers. The selection of beam angles was important in the IMPT optimization, especially for nasal cavity cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22129564     DOI: 10.1269/jrr.11136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Radiat Res        ISSN: 0449-3060            Impact factor:   2.724


  17 in total

Review 1.  Proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer-is the hype (and the cost) justified?

Authors:  Phillip J Gray; Jason A Efstathiou
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Wax boluses and accuracy of EBT and RTQA radiochromic film detectors in radiotherapy with the JINR Phasotron proton beam.

Authors:  Dorota Maria Borowicz; Julian Malicki; Gennady Mytsin; Konstantin Shipulin
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2013-07-02

3.  Sparing Cardiac Substructures With Optimized Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy in Thoracic Radiation for Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Matthew J Ferris; Katherine S Martin; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Oluwatosin A Kayode; Jonathan Wolf; Quang Dang; Robert H Press; Walter J Curran; Kristin A Higgins
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-05-09

4.  Investigating aperture-based approximations to model a focused dynamic collimation system for pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  Nicholas P Nelson; Wesley S Culberson; Daniel E Hyer; Blake R Smith; Ryan T Flynn; Patrick M Hill
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2022-02-18

5.  Integrated beam orientation and scanning-spot optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy for brain and unilateral head and neck tumors.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Daniel O'Connor; Dan Nguyen; Victoria Y Yu; Dan Ruan; Lei Dong; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Quality of life and toxicity from passively scattered and spot-scanning proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Thomas J Pugh; Mark F Munsell; Seungtaek Choi; Quyhn Nhu Nguyen; Benson Mathai; X Ron Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael Gillin; Jennifer L Johnson; Richard A Amos; Lei Dong; Usama Mahmood; Deborah A Kuban; Steven J Frank; Karen E Hoffman; Sean E McGuire; Andrew K Lee
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Dual-storage phosphor proton therapy dosimetry: Simultaneous quantification of dose and linear energy transfer.

Authors:  Jufri Setianegara; Thomas R Mazur; Deshan Yang; H Harold Li
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 8.  Particle therapy for non-small cell lung tumors: where do we stand? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Krista C J Wink; Erik Roelofs; Timothy Solberg; Liyong Lin; Charles B Simone; Annika Jakobi; Christian Richter; Philippe Lambin; Esther G C Troost
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Enhanced radiobiological effects at the distal end of a clinical proton beam: in vitro study.

Authors:  Yoshitaka Matsumoto; Taeko Matsuura; Mami Wada; Yusuke Egashira; Teiji Nishio; Yoshiya Furusawa
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 2.724

10.  Whole-pelvic radiotherapy with spot-scanning proton beams for uterine cervical cancer: a planning study.

Authors:  Shingo Hashimoto; Yuta Shibamoto; Hiromitsu Iwata; Hiroyuki Ogino; Hiroki Shibata; Toshiyuki Toshito; Chikao Sugie; Jun-Etsu Mizoe
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 2.724

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.