OBJECTIVE: For the past 20 years, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) has treated more than 1500 patients with deep-seated tumors using PSI-Plan, an in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) used for proton beam scanning proton therapy, in combination with its home-built gantries. The goal of the present work is to benchmark the performance of a new TPS/Gantry system for proton therapy centers which have established already a baseline standard of care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 31 cases (=52 plans) distributed around 7 anatomical sites and 12 indications were randomly selected and re-planned using Eclipse™. The resulting plans were compared with plans formerly optimized in PSI-Plan, in terms of target coverage, plan quality, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing and number of delivered pencil beams. RESULTS: Our results show an improvement on target coverage and homogeneity when using Eclipse™ while PSI-Plan showed superior plan conformity. As for OAR sparing, both TPS achieved the clinical constraints. The number of pencil beams required per plan was on average 3.4 times higher for PSI-Plan. CONCLUSION: Both systems showed a good capacity to produce satisfactory plans, with Eclipse™ being able to achieve better target coverage and plan homogeneity without compromising OARs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A benchmark between a clinically tested and validated system with a commercial solution is of interest for emerging proton therapy, equipped with commercial systems and no previous experience with proton beam scanning.
OBJECTIVE: For the past 20 years, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) has treated more than 1500 patients with deep-seated tumors using PSI-Plan, an in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) used for proton beam scanning proton therapy, in combination with its home-built gantries. The goal of the present work is to benchmark the performance of a new TPS/Gantry system for proton therapy centers which have established already a baseline standard of care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 31 cases (=52 plans) distributed around 7 anatomical sites and 12 indications were randomly selected and re-planned using Eclipse™. The resulting plans were compared with plans formerly optimized in PSI-Plan, in terms of target coverage, plan quality, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing and number of delivered pencil beams. RESULTS: Our results show an improvement on target coverage and homogeneity when using Eclipse™ while PSI-Plan showed superior plan conformity. As for OAR sparing, both TPS achieved the clinical constraints. The number of pencil beams required per plan was on average 3.4 times higher for PSI-Plan. CONCLUSION: Both systems showed a good capacity to produce satisfactory plans, with Eclipse™ being able to achieve better target coverage and plan homogeneity without compromising OARs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A benchmark between a clinically tested and validated system with a commercial solution is of interest for emerging proton therapy, equipped with commercial systems and no previous experience with proton beam scanning.
Authors: R Harding; P Trnková; S J Weston; J Lilley; C M Thompson; S C Short; C Loughrey; V P Cosgrove; A J Lomax; D I Thwaites Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Carmen Ares; Eugen B Hug; Antony J Lomax; Alessandra Bolsi; Beate Timmermann; Hans Peter Rutz; Jan C Schuller; Eros Pedroni; Gudrun Goitein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James W Snider; Ralf A Schneider; Davey Poelma-Tap; Sonja Stieb; Fritz R Murray; Lorenzo Placidi; Francesca Albertini; Antony Lomax; Alessandra Bolsi; Ulrike Kliebsch; Robert Malyapa; Damien C Weber Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sonja Stieb; James W Snider; Lorenzo Placidi; Ulrike Kliebsch; Anthony J Lomax; Ralf A Schneider; Damien C Weber Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 7.038