Maryam Moteabbed1, Torunn I Yock2, Nicolas Depauw2, Thomas M Madden2, Hanne M Kooy2, Harald Paganetti2. 1. Radiation Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: mmoteabbed@partners.org. 2. Radiation Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of spot size and the addition of apertures and range compensators on the treatment quality of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy and to define when PBS could improve on passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The patient cohort included 14 pediatric patients treated with PSPT. Six PBS plans were created and optimized for each patient using 3 spot sizes (∼12-, 5.4-, and 2.5-mm median sigma at isocenter for 90- to 230-MeV range) and adding apertures and compensators to plans with the 2 larger spots. Conformity and homogeneity indices, dose-volume histogram parameters, equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and integral dose were quantified and compared with the respective PSPT plans. RESULTS: The results clearly indicated that PBS with the largest spots does not necessarily offer a dosimetric or clinical advantage over PSPT. With comparable target coverage, the mean dose (Dmean) to healthy organs was on average 6.3% larger than PSPT when using this spot size. However, adding apertures to plans with large spots improved the treatment quality by decreasing the average Dmean and EUD by up to 8.6% and 3.2% of the prescribed dose, respectively. Decreasing the spot size further improved all plans, lowering the average Dmean and EUD by up to 11.6% and 10.9% compared with PSPT, respectively, and eliminated the need for beam-shaping devices. The NTCP decreased with spot size and addition of apertures, with maximum reduction of 5.4% relative to PSPT. CONCLUSIONS: The added benefit of using PBS strongly depends on the delivery configurations. Facilities limited to large spot sizes (>∼8 mm median sigma at isocenter) are recommended to use apertures to reduce treatment-related toxicities, at least for complex and/or small tumors.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of spot size and the addition of apertures and range compensators on the treatment quality of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy and to define when PBS could improve on passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The patient cohort included 14 pediatric patients treated with PSPT. Six PBS plans were created and optimized for each patient using 3 spot sizes (∼12-, 5.4-, and 2.5-mm median sigma at isocenter for 90- to 230-MeV range) and adding apertures and compensators to plans with the 2 larger spots. Conformity and homogeneity indices, dose-volume histogram parameters, equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and integral dose were quantified and compared with the respective PSPT plans. RESULTS: The results clearly indicated that PBS with the largest spots does not necessarily offer a dosimetric or clinical advantage over PSPT. With comparable target coverage, the mean dose (Dmean) to healthy organs was on average 6.3% larger than PSPT when using this spot size. However, adding apertures to plans with large spots improved the treatment quality by decreasing the average Dmean and EUD by up to 8.6% and 3.2% of the prescribed dose, respectively. Decreasing the spot size further improved all plans, lowering the average Dmean and EUD by up to 11.6% and 10.9% compared with PSPT, respectively, and eliminated the need for beam-shaping devices. The NTCP decreased with spot size and addition of apertures, with maximum reduction of 5.4% relative to PSPT. CONCLUSIONS: The added benefit of using PBS strongly depends on the delivery configurations. Facilities limited to large spot sizes (>∼8 mm median sigma at isocenter) are recommended to use apertures to reduce treatment-related toxicities, at least for complex and/or small tumors.
Authors: Jason A Efstathiou; Jonathan J Paly; Hsiao-Ming Lu; Basit S Athar; Maryam Moteabbed; Andrzej Niemierko; Judith A Adams; Justin E Bekelman; William U Shipley; Anthony L Zietman; Harald Paganetti Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-03-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Hanne M Kooy; Benjamin M Clasie; Hsiao-Ming Lu; Thomas M Madden; Hassan Bentefour; Nicolas Depauw; Judy A Adams; Alexei V Trofimov; Denis Demaret; Thomas F Delaney; Jacob B Flanz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephen J Dowdell; Benjamin Clasie; Nicolas Depauw; Peter Metcalfe; Anatoly B Rosenfeld; Hanne M Kooy; Jacob B Flanz; Harald Paganetti Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Dongxu Wang; Blake Dirksen; Daniel E Hyer; John M Buatti; Arshin Sheybani; Eric Dinges; Nicole Felderman; Mindi TenNapel; John E Bayouth; Ryan T Flynn Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Melissa M Hudson; Daniel A Mulrooney; Daniel C Bowers; Charles A Sklar; Daniel M Green; Sarah S Donaldson; Kevin C Oeffinger; Joseph P Neglia; Anna T Meadows; Leslie L Robison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anna T Meadows; Debra L Friedman; Joseph P Neglia; Ann C Mertens; Sarah S Donaldson; Marilyn Stovall; Sue Hammond; Yutaka Yasui; Peter D Inskip Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bowen Lin; Shujun Fu; Yuting Lin; Ronny L Rotondo; Weizhang Huang; Harold H Li; Ronald C Chen; Hao Gao Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Chenbin Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Shawn Korte; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Yixiu Kang; Sameer R Keole; Terence T Sio; William W Wong; Narayan Sahoo; Martin Bues; Wei Liu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David R Grosshans; Radhe Mohan; Vinai Gondi; Helen A Shih; Anita Mahajan; Paul D Brown Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Christian Bäumer; Sandija Plaude; Dalia Ahmad Khalil; Dirk Geismar; Paul-Heinz Kramer; Kevin Kröninger; Christian Nitsch; Jörg Wulff; Beate Timmermann Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 6.244