Literature DB >> 27487886

Technical Note: A treatment plan comparison between dynamic collimation and a fixed aperture during spot scanning proton therapy for brain treatment.

Blake Smith1, Edgar Gelover1, Alexandra Moignier1, Dongxu Wang1, Ryan T Flynn1, Liyong Lin2, Maura Kirk2, Tim Solberg2, Daniel E Hyer1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess the advantages of energy-layer specific dynamic collimation system (DCS) versus a per-field fixed aperture for spot scanning proton therapy (SSPT).
METHODS: Five brain cancer patients previously planned and treated with SSPT were replanned using an in-house treatment planning system capable of modeling collimated and uncollimated proton beamlets. The uncollimated plans, which served as a baseline for comparison, reproduced the target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing of the clinically delivered plans. The collimator opening for the fixed aperture-based plans was determined from the combined cross sections of the target in the beam's eye view over all energy layers which included an additional margin equivalent to the maximum beamlet displacement for the respective energy of that energy layer. The DCS-based plans were created by selecting appropriate collimator positions for each row of beam spots during a Raster-style scanning pattern which were optimized to maximize the dose contributions to the target and limited the dose delivered to adjacent normal tissue.
RESULTS: The reduction of mean dose to normal tissue adjacent to the target, as defined by a 10 mm ring surrounding the target, averaged 13.65% (range: 11.8%-16.9%) and 5.18% (2.9%-7.1%) for the DCS and fixed aperture plans, respectively. The conformity index, as defined by the ratio of the volume of the 50% isodose line to the target volume, yielded an average improvement of 21.35% (19.4%-22.6%) and 8.38% (4.7%-12.0%) for the DCS and fixed aperture plans, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability of the DCS to provide collimation to each energy layer yielded better conformity in comparison to fixed aperture plans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27487886      PMCID: PMC5360163          DOI: 10.1118/1.4955117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  15 in total

1.  Treatment planning comparison of conventional, 3D conformal, and intensity-modulated photon (IMRT) and proton therapy for paranasal sinus carcinoma.

Authors:  Ulrike Mock; Dietmar Georg; Joachim Bogner; Thomas Auberger; Richard Pötter
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations.

Authors:  L Hong; M Goitein; M Bucciolini; R Comiskey; B Gottschalk; S Rosenthal; C Serago; M Urie
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  A method to select aperture margin in collimated spot scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  Dongxu Wang; Blake R Smith; Edgar Gelover; Ryan T Flynn; Daniel E Hyer
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Is there a single spot size and grid for intensity modulated proton therapy? Simulation of head and neck, prostate and mesothelioma cases.

Authors:  Lamberto Widesott; Antony J Lomax; Marco Schwarz
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A method for modeling laterally asymmetric proton beamlets resulting from collimation.

Authors:  Edgar Gelover; Dongxu Wang; Patrick M Hill; Ryan T Flynn; Mingcheng Gao; Steve Laub; Mark Pankuch; Daniel E Hyer
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Impact of spot size on plan quality of spot scanning proton radiosurgery for peripheral brain lesions.

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

7.  Commissioning dose computation models for spot scanning proton beams in water for a commercially available treatment planning system.

Authors:  X R Zhu; F Poenisch; M Lii; G O Sawakuchi; U Titt; M Bues; X Song; X Zhang; Y Li; G Ciangaru; H Li; M B Taylor; K Suzuki; R Mohan; M T Gillin; N Sahoo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Intensity-modulated x-ray (IMXT) versus proton (IMPT) therapy for theragnostic hypoxia-based dose painting.

Authors:  Ryan T Flynn; Stephen R Bowen; Søren M Bentzen; T Rockwell Mackie; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Reducing the cost of proton radiation therapy: the feasibility of a streamlined treatment technique for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Wayne D Newhauser; Rui Zhang; Timothy G Jones; Annelise Giebeler; Phillip J Taddei; Robert D Stewart; Andrew Lee; Oleg Vassiliev
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 6.639

10.  Comparing proton treatment plans of pediatric brain tumors in two pencil beam scanning nozzles with different spot sizes.

Authors:  John C Kralik; Liwen Xi; Timothy D Solberg; Charles B Simone; Liyong Lin
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  14 in total

1.  Technical Note: Optimization of spot and trimmer position during dynamically collimated proton therapy.

Authors:  Blake R Smith; Daniel E Hyer; Ryan T Flynn; Wesley S Culberson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Experimental and Monte Carlo characterization of a dynamic collimation system prototype for pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  Blake R Smith; Mark Pankuch; Daniel E Hyer; Wesley S Culberson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Trimmer sequencing time minimization during dynamically collimated proton therapy using a colony of cooperating agents.

Authors:  Blake R Smith; Daniel E Hyer; Ryan T Flynn; Patrick M Hill; Wesley S Culberson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 4.  Neutron dose and its measurement in proton therapy-current State of Knowledge.

Authors:  Roger Antoine Hälg; Uwe Schneider
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  The dosimetric enhancement of GRID profiles using an external collimator in pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

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

6.  Investigating aperture-based approximations to model a focused dynamic collimation system for pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

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

7.  An investigation into the robustness of dynamically collimated proton therapy treatments.

Authors:  Blake R Smith; Daniel E Hyer; Wesley S Culberson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-16       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Clinical Implementation of Proton Therapy Using Pencil-Beam Scanning Delivery Combined With Static Apertures.

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

9.  Dose distribution effects of spot-scanning proton beam therapy equipped with a multi-leaf collimator for pediatric brain tumors.

Authors:  Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu; Tomohiro Yamashita; Masayuki Mima; Yusuke Demizu; Takeshi Suzuki; Toshinori Soejima
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.967

10.  Innovations and the Use of Collimators in the Delivery of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Daniel E Hyer; Laura C Bennett; Theodore J Geoghegan; Martin Bues; Blake R Smith
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2021-06-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.