PURPOSE: To determine the plan quality of proton spot scanning (SS) radiosurgery as a function of spot size (in-air sigma) in comparison to x-ray radiosurgery for treating peripheral brain lesions. METHODS: Single-field optimized (SFO) proton SS plans with sigma ranging from 1 to 8 mm, cone-based x-ray radiosurgery (Cone), and x-ray volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for 11 patients. Plans were evaluated using secondary cancer risk and brain necrosis normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). RESULTS: For all patients, secondary cancer is a negligible risk compared to brain necrosis NTCP. Secondary cancer risk was lower in proton SS plans than in photon plans regardless of spot size (p = 0.001). Brain necrosis NTCP increased monotonically from an average of 2.34/100 (range 0.42/100-4.49/100) to 6.05/100 (range 1.38/100-11.6/100) as sigma increased from 1 to 8 mm, compared to the average of 6.01/100 (range 0.82/100-11.5/100) for Cone and 5.22/100 (range 1.37/100-8.00/100) for VMAT. An in-air sigma less than 4.3 mm was required for proton SS plans to reduce NTCP over photon techniques for the cohort of patients studied with statistical significance (p = 0.0186). Proton SS plans with in-air sigma larger than 7.1 mm had significantly greater brain necrosis NTCP than photon techniques (p = 0.0322). CONCLUSIONS: For treating peripheral brain lesions--where proton therapy would be expected to have the greatest depth-dose advantage over photon therapy--the lateral penumbra strongly impacts the SS plan quality relative to photon techniques: proton beamlet sigma at patient surface must be small (<7.1 mm for three-beam single-field optimized SS plans) in order to achieve comparable or smaller brain necrosis NTCP relative to photon radiosurgery techniques. Achieving such small in-air sigma values at low energy (<70 MeV) is a major technological challenge in commercially available proton therapy systems.
PURPOSE: To determine the plan quality of proton spot scanning (SS) radiosurgery as a function of spot size (in-air sigma) in comparison to x-ray radiosurgery for treating peripheral brain lesions. METHODS: Single-field optimized (SFO) proton SS plans with sigma ranging from 1 to 8 mm, cone-based x-ray radiosurgery (Cone), and x-ray volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for 11 patients. Plans were evaluated using secondary cancer risk and brain necrosis normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). RESULTS: For all patients, secondary cancer is a negligible risk compared to brain necrosisNTCP. Secondary cancer risk was lower in proton SS plans than in photon plans regardless of spot size (p = 0.001). Brain necrosisNTCP increased monotonically from an average of 2.34/100 (range 0.42/100-4.49/100) to 6.05/100 (range 1.38/100-11.6/100) as sigma increased from 1 to 8 mm, compared to the average of 6.01/100 (range 0.82/100-11.5/100) for Cone and 5.22/100 (range 1.37/100-8.00/100) for VMAT. An in-air sigma less than 4.3 mm was required for proton SS plans to reduce NTCP over photon techniques for the cohort of patients studied with statistical significance (p = 0.0186). Proton SS plans with in-air sigma larger than 7.1 mm had significantly greater brain necrosisNTCP than photon techniques (p = 0.0322). CONCLUSIONS: For treating peripheral brain lesions--where proton therapy would be expected to have the greatest depth-dose advantage over photon therapy--the lateral penumbra strongly impacts the SS plan quality relative to photon techniques: proton beamlet sigma at patient surface must be small (<7.1 mm for three-beam single-field optimized SS plans) in order to achieve comparable or smaller brain necrosisNTCP relative to photon radiosurgery techniques. Achieving such small in-air sigma values at low energy (<70 MeV) is a major technological challenge in commercially available proton therapy systems.
Authors: Blake Smith; Edgar Gelover; Alexandra Moignier; Dongxu Wang; Ryan T Flynn; Liyong Lin; Maura Kirk; Tim Solberg; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alexandra Moignier; Edgar Gelover; Blake R Smith; Dongxu Wang; Ryan T Flynn; Maura L Kirk; Liyong Lin; Timothy D Solberg; Alexander Lin; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Maryam Moteabbed; Torunn I Yock; Nicolas Depauw; Thomas M Madden; Hanne M Kooy; Harald Paganetti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Blake R Smith; Nicholas P Nelson; Theodore J Geoghegan; Kaustubh A Patwardhan; Patrick M Hill; Jen Yu; Alonso N Gutiérrez; Bryan G Allen; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 4.071
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
Authors: Theodore J Geoghegan; Nicholas P Nelson; Ryan T Flynn; Patrick M Hill; Suresh Rana; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alexandra Moignier; Edgar Gelover; Dongxu Wang; Blake Smith; Ryan Flynn; Maura Kirk; Liyong Lin; Timothy Solberg; Alexander Lin; Daniel Hyer Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-03-24