Literature DB >> 25679158

A comparison of the dose distributions from three proton treatment planning systems in the planning of meningioma patients with single-field uniform dose pencil beam scanning.

Paul J Doolan1, Jailan Alshaikhi, Ivan Rosenberg, Chris G Ainsley, Adam Gibson, Derek D'Souza, El Hassane Bentefour, Gary Royle.   

Abstract

With the number of new proton centers increasing rapidly, there is a need for an assessment of the available proton treatment planning systems (TPSs). This study compares the dose distributions of complex meningioma plans produced by three proton TPSs: Eclipse, Pinnacle3, and XiO. All three systems were commissioned with the same beam data and, as best as possible, matched configuration settings. Proton treatment plans for ten patients were produced on each system with a pencil beam scanning, single-field uniform dose approach, using a fixed horizontal beamline. All 30 plans were subjected to identical dose constraints, both for the target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing, with a consistent order of priority. Beam geometry, lateral field margins, and lateral spot resolutions were made consistent across all systems. Few statistically significant differences were found between the target coverage and OAR sparing of each system, with all optimizers managing to produce plans within clinical tolerances (D2 < 107% of prescribed dose, D5 < 105%, D95 > 95%, D99 > 90%, and OAR maximum doses) despite strict constraints and overlapping structures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25679158      PMCID: PMC5689989          DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.4996

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys        ISSN: 1526-9914            Impact factor:   2.102


Supplementary Material Click here for additional data file.
  42 in total

1.  CERR: a computational environment for radiotherapy research.

Authors:  Joseph O Deasy; Angel I Blanco; Vanessa H Clark
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Yupeng Li; Xiaoqiang Li; Wenhua Cao; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  IMRT for breast. a planning study.

Authors:  A Fogliata; G Nicolini; M Alber; M Asell; B Dobler; M El-Haddad; B Hårdemark; U Jelen; A Kania; M Larsson; F Lohr; T Munger; E Negri; C Rodrigues; L Cozzi
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.280

4.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Thomas Bortfeld; Benjamin C Martin; Martin Soukup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Measurements of lateral penumbra for uniform scanning proton beams under various beam delivery conditions and comparison to the XiO treatment planning system.

Authors:  Suresh Rana; Omar Zeidan; Eric Ramirez; Michael Rains; Junfang Gao; Yuanshui Zheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Comparative treatment planning between proton and X-ray therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  U Isacsson; A Montelius; B Jung; B Glimelius
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 7.  The WHO classification of tumors of the nervous system.

Authors:  Paul Kleihues; David N Louis; Bernd W Scheithauer; Lucy B Rorke; Guido Reifenberger; Peter C Burger; Webster K Cavenee
Journal:  J Neuropathol Exp Neurol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.685

8.  Advantage of protons compared to conventional X-ray or IMRT in the treatment of a pediatric patient with medulloblastoma.

Authors:  W H St Clair; J A Adams; M Bues; B C Fullerton; Sean La Shell; H M Kooy; J S Loeffler; N J Tarbell
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  On the performances of different IMRT Treatment Planning Systems for selected paediatric cases.

Authors:  Antonella Fogliata; Giorgia Nicolini; Markus Alber; Mats Asell; Alessandro Clivio; Barbara Dobler; Malin Larsson; Frank Lohr; Friedlieb Lorenz; Jan Muzik; Martin Polednik; Eugenio Vanetti; Dirk Wolff; Rolf Wyttenbach; Luca Cozzi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  The energy margin strategy for reducing dose variation due to setup uncertainty in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) delivered with distal edge tracking (DET).

Authors:  Miao Zhang; Ryan T Flynn; Xiaohu Mo; Thomas Rock Mackie
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  4 in total

1.  Robust optimization in IMPT using quadratic objective functions to account for the minimum MU constraint.

Authors:  Jie Shan; Yu An; Martin Bues; Steven E Schild; Wei Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Advanced Proton Beam Dosimetry Part I: review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms.

Authors:  Jatinder Saini; Erik Traneus; Dominic Maes; Rajesh Regmi; Stephen R Bowen; Charles Bloch; Tony Wong
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04

3.  Benchmarking a commercial proton therapy solution: The Paul Scherrer Institut experience.

Authors:  Sara Rosas; Francesca M Belosi; Nicola Bizzocchi; Till Böhlen; Stefan Zepter; Petra Morach; Antony J Lomax; Damien C Weber; Jan Hrbacek
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  A step towards international prospective trials in carbon ion radiotherapy: investigation of factors influencing dose distribution in the facilities in operation based on a case of skull base chordoma.

Authors:  G Vogin; A Wambersie; M Koto; T Ohno; M Uhl; P Fossati; J Balosso
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.481

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.