| Literature DB >> 23078998 |
Noriyuki Okonogi1, Takatuki Hashimoto, Masaya Ishida, Toshiki Ohno, Toshiyuki Terunuma, Toshiyuki Okumura, Takeji Sakae, Hideyuki Sakurai.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proton-beam therapy (PBT) provides therapeutic advantages over conformal x-ray therapy in sparing organs at risk when treating esophageal cancer because of the fundamental physical dose distribution of the proton-beam. However, cases with extended esophageal lesions are difficult to treat with conventional PBT with a single isocentric field, as the length of the planning target volume (PTV) is longer than the available PBT field size in many facilities. In this study, the feasibility of a practical technique to effectively match PBT fields for esophageal cancer with a larger regional field beyond the available PBT field size was investigated.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23078998 PMCID: PMC3508937 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-7-173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Figure 2D-SLIT fine-tuning. The two figures show beam’s eye view-shaped fields designed to match the cranial field and caudal field. (A) To avoid hot spots around the junction, a part of the PTV was blocked by the MLC. (B) To reduce hot or cold spots, the isocenter distance was fine-tuned by 2.5 mm (half-width of the MLC leaf in our facility).
Figure 3D-SLIT dose distribution and profile. (Left) The upper figure shows dose distribution with D-SLIT in the axial view and sagittal view. PTV appears white in the axial view. Dose distributions in percentages (10-105%) are shown in the left bar chart. The lower figure shows the dose profile along the CC axis on the isocenter line. (Right) Enlarged dose profile around the field junction. Minimum dose, maximum dose, and discordant distance were calculated by treatment-planning system. To calculate discordant distance, all dose profiles were exported to a spreadsheet. At first, the dose increasing/decreasing region over 2% was extracted at intervals of 3-mm on the dose profile around field junction. Secondly, the starting points of does change in those regions were detected with 0.1-mm resolution. Then, the distance between two furthest points was calculated as the discordant distance.
Figure 4Results of average and standard deviation with D-SLIT. (A) Distributions of minimum dose and maximum dose in all 20 cases. Each cross symbol shows the dose in each case. Open symbols represent average doses. (B) Average and standard deviation with D-SLIT.
Dosimetric results in 20 cases
| 1 | 240 | 95.6 | 107.3 | 18.1 | 1.12 |
| 2 | 195 | 95.3 | 101.9 | 11.3 | 1.07 |
| 3 | 230 | 95.4 | 101.0 | 9.5 | 1.06 |
| 4 | 190 | 97.7 | 108.2 | 13.3 | 1.11 |
| 5 | 200 | 96.4 | 101.1 | 2.9 | 1.05 |
| 6 | 190 | 99.5 | 108.7 | 12.9 | 1.09 |
| 7 | 170 | 99.5 | 106.3 | 14.8 | 1.07 |
| 8 | 190 | 97.8 | 100.0 | 5.0 | 1.02 |
| 9 | 210 | 95.9 | 101.4 | 8.1 | 1.06 |
| 10 | 220 | 94.8 | 108.9 | 14.3 | 1.15 |
| 11 | 165 | 97.0 | 109.2 | 12.5 | 1.13 |
| 12 | 215 | 93.7 | 100.3 | 9.3 | 1.07 |
| 13 | 230 | 94.8 | 102.8 | 10.9 | 1.08 |
| 14 | 230 | 84.8 | 109.8 | 15.9 | 1.29 |
| 15 | 245 | 98.2 | 111.9 | 12.8 | 1.14 |
| 16 | 190 | 96.5 | 101.2 | 3.0 | 1.05 |
| 17 | 210 | 98.9 | 111.4 | 13.0 | 1.13 |
| 18 | 165 | 95.7 | 105.9 | 11.0 | 1.11 |
| 19 | 220 | 97.4 | 101.2 | 5.0 | 1.04 |
| 20 | 220 | 93.1 | 107.3 | 8.8 | 1.15 |
| Average | 206.3 | 95.9 | 105.3 | 10.6 | 1.10 |
| S.D. | 24.0 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 0.1 |
Abbreviations: No.; number, PTV; planning target volume, S.D.; standard deviation.
Figure 5Comparison of dose distributions between the treatment-planning system and imaging plate. Dose distribution by the treatment-planning system and imaging plate (IP) along the CC axis on the isocenter line. White bars show the treatment-planning system, and gray bars show the imaging plate. The dose ‘gap’ between the treatment-planning system and IP was up to 4.3%.