Ian Postuma1, Sara González2,3, Maria S Herrera3, Lucas Provenzano2,3, Michele Ferrarini4, Chiara Magni1,5, Nicoletta Protti1,5, Setareh Fatemi1, Valerio Vercesi1, Giuseppe Battistoni6, Umberto Anselmi Tamburini1,7, Yuan Hao Liu8,9, Leena Kankaanranta10, Hanna Koivunoro11, Saverio Altieri1,5, Silva Bortolussi1,5. 1. Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Unit of Pavia, via Bassi 6, 27100 Pavia, Italy. 2. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA), Avenida General Paz 1499, Villa Maipú, Buenos Aires B1650, Argentina. 3. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Godoy Cruz 2290, Argentina. 4. Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, CNAO, Strada Campeggi 53, 27100 Pavia, Italy. 5. Department of Physics, University of Pavia, via Bassi 6, 27100 Pavia, Italy. 6. Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Unit of Milan, via Celoria 16, 20133 Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Chemistry, University of Pavia, via Taramelli 12, 27100 Pavia, Italy. 8. Neuboron Medtech, No.568, Longmian Ave., Jiangning District, Nanjing 210093, China. 9. Department of Nuclear Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Areonautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210093, China. 10. Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki,Yliopistonkatu 4, 00100 Helsinki, Finland. 11. Neutron Therapeutics, 1 Industrial Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Abstract
(1) Background:The quality of neutron beams for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) is currently defined by its physical characteristics in air. Recommendations exist to define whether a designed beam is useful for clinical treatment. This work presents a new way to evaluate neutron beams based on their clinical performance and on their safety, employing radiobiological quantities. (2) Methods: The case study is a neutron beam for deep-seated tumors from a 5 MeV proton beam coupled to a beryllium target. Physical Figures of Merit were used to design five beams; however, they did not allow a clear ranking of their quality in terms of therapeutic potential. The latter was then evaluated based on in-phantom dose distributions and on the calculation of the Uncomplicated Tumor Control Probability (UTCP). The safety of the beams was also evaluated calculating the in-patient out-of-beam dosimetry. (3) Results: All the beams ensured a UTCP comparable to the one of a clinical beam in phantom; the safety criterion allowed to choose the best candidate. When this was tested in the treatment planning of a real patient treated in Finland, the UTCP was still comparable to the one of the clinical beam. (4) Conclusions: Even when standard physical recommendations are not met, radiobiological and dosimetric criteria demonstrate to be a valid tool to select an effective and safe beam for patient treatment.
(1) Background:The quality of neutron beams for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) is currently defined by its physical characteristics in air. Recommendations exist to define whether a designed beam is useful for clinical treatment. This work presents a new way to evaluate neutron beams based on their clinical performance and on their safety, employing radiobiological quantities. (2) Methods: The case study is a neutron beam for deep-seated tumors from a 5 MeV proton beam coupled to a beryllium target. Physical Figures of Merit were used to design five beams; however, they did not allow a clear ranking of their quality in terms of therapeutic potential. The latter was then evaluated based on in-phantom dose distributions and on the calculation of the Uncomplicated Tumor Control Probability (UTCP). The safety of the beams was also evaluated calculating the in-patient out-of-beam dosimetry. (3) Results: All the beams ensured a UTCP comparable to the one of a clinical beam in phantom; the safety criterion allowed to choose the best candidate. When this was tested in the treatment planning of a real patient treated in Finland, the UTCP was still comparable to the one of the clinical beam. (4) Conclusions: Even when standard physical recommendations are not met, radiobiological and dosimetric criteria demonstrate to be a valid tool to select an effective and safe beam for patient treatment.
Authors: A J Kreiner; V Thatar Vento; P Levinas; J Bergueiro; H Di Paolo; A A Burlon; J M Kesque; A A Valda; M E Debray; H R Somacal; D M Minsky; L Estrada; A Hazarabedian; F Johann; J C Suarez Sandin; W Castell; J Davidson; M Davidson; Y Giboudot; M Repetto; M Obligado; J P Nery; H Huck; M Igarzabal; A Fernandez Salares Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: V Aleynik; A Burdakov; V Davydenko; A Ivanov; V Kanygin; A Kuznetsov; A Makarov; I Sorokin; S Taskaev Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: Leena Kankaanranta; Tiina Seppälä; Hanna Koivunoro; Kauko Saarilahti; Timo Atula; Juhani Collan; Eero Salli; Mika Kortesniemi; Jouni Uusi-Simola; Petteri Välimäki; Antti Mäkitie; Marko Seppänen; Heikki Minn; Hannu Revitzer; Mauri Kouri; Petri Kotiluoto; Tom Seren; Iiro Auterinen; Sauli Savolainen; Heikki Joensuu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P R Menéndez; B M C Roth; M D Pereira; M R Casal; S J González; D B Feld; G A Santa Cruz; J Kessler; J Longhino; H Blaumann; R Jiménez Rebagliati; O A Calzetta Larrieu; C Fernández; S I Nievas; S J Liberman Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2009-03-27 Impact factor: 1.513