Birgit Sabine Müller1, Marciana Nona Duma2, Severin Kampfer3, Simeon Nill4, Uwe Oelfke4, Hans Geinitz5, Jan Jakob Wilkens3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany; Physik-Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: Birgit.Mueller@lrz.tu-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany; Physik-Department, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 4. Joint Department of Physics at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Schwestern Linz, Linz, Austria; Medical Faculty, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of interfractional changes on the delivered dose of intensity modulated proton (IMPT) and photon plans (IMXT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five postoperative head and neck cancer patients, previously treated with tomotherapy at our institute, were analyzed. The planning study is based on megavoltage (MV) control images. For each patient one IMPT plan and one IMXT plan were generated on the first MV-CT and recalculated on weekly control MV-CTs in the actual treatment position. Dose criteria for evaluation were coverage and conformity of the planning target volume (PTV), as well as mean dose to parotids and maximum dose to spinal cord. RESULTS: Considerable dosimetric changes were observed for IMPT and IMXT plans. Proton plans showed a more pronounced increase of maximum dose and decrease of minimum dose with local underdosage occurring even in the center of the PTV (worst IMPT vs. IMXT coverage: 66.7% vs. 85.0%). The doses to organs at risk (OARs) increased during the treatment period. However, the OAR doses of IMPT stayed below corresponding IMXT values at any time. For both modalities treatment plans did not necessarily worsen monotonically throughout the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although absolute differences between planned and reconstructed doses were larger in IMPT plans, doses to OARs were higher in IMXT plans. Tumor coverage was more stable in IMXT plans; IMPT dose distributions indicated a high risk for local underdosage during the treatment course.
PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of interfractional changes on the delivered dose of intensity modulated proton (IMPT) and photon plans (IMXT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five postoperative head and neck cancerpatients, previously treated with tomotherapy at our institute, were analyzed. The planning study is based on megavoltage (MV) control images. For each patient one IMPT plan and one IMXT plan were generated on the first MV-CT and recalculated on weekly control MV-CTs in the actual treatment position. Dose criteria for evaluation were coverage and conformity of the planning target volume (PTV), as well as mean dose to parotids and maximum dose to spinal cord. RESULTS: Considerable dosimetric changes were observed for IMPT and IMXT plans. Proton plans showed a more pronounced increase of maximum dose and decrease of minimum dose with local underdosage occurring even in the center of the PTV (worst IMPT vs. IMXT coverage: 66.7% vs. 85.0%). The doses to organs at risk (OARs) increased during the treatment period. However, the OAR doses of IMPT stayed below corresponding IMXT values at any time. For both modalities treatment plans did not necessarily worsen monotonically throughout the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although absolute differences between planned and reconstructed doses were larger in IMPT plans, doses to OARs were higher in IMXT plans. Tumor coverage was more stable in IMXT plans; IMPT dose distributions indicated a high risk for local underdosage during the treatment course.
Authors: Wei Liu; Samir H Patel; Jiajian Jason Shen; Yanle Hu; Daniel P Harrington; Xiaoning Ding; Michele Y Halyard; Steven E Schild; William W Wong; Gary A Ezzell; Martin Bues Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-02-13
Authors: Mislav Bobić; Arthur Lalonde; Gregory C Sharp; Clemens Grassberger; Joost M Verburg; Brian A Winey; Antony J Lomax; Harald Paganetti Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jianzhong Cao; Xiaodong Zhang; Bo Jiang; Jiayun Chen; Xiaochun Wang; Li Wang; Narayan Sahoo; X Ronald Zhu; Rong Ye; Pierre Blanchard; Adam S Garden; C David Fuller; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 4.174