Literature DB >> 34313911

Dosimetric effects of quality assurance-related setup errors in passive proton therapy for prostate cancer with and without a hydrogel spacer.

Yuta Omi1, Keisuke Yasui2, Akira Shimomura3, Rie Muramatsu3, Hiromitsu Iwata3, Hiroyuki Ogino3, Akari Furukawa4, Naoki Hayashi4.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of quality assurance (QA)-related setup errors in passive proton therapy for prostate cancer with and without a hydrogel spacer. We used 20 typical computed tomography (CT) images of prostate cancer: 10 patients with and 10 patients without spacers. The following 12 model errors were assumed: output error ± 2%, range error ± 1 mm, setup error ± 1 mm for three directions, and multileaf collimator (MLC) position error ± 1 mm. We created verification plans with model errors and compared the prostate-rectal (PR) distance and dose indices with and without the spacer. The mean PR distance at the isocenter was 1.1 ± 1.3 mm without the spacer and 12.9 ± 2.9 mm with the spacer (P < 0.001). The mean rectum V53.5 GyE, V50 GyE, and V34.5 GyE in the original plan were 2.3%, 4.1%, and 12.1% without the spacer and 0.1%, 0.4%, and 3.3% with the spacer (P = 0.0011, < 0.001, and < 0.001). The effects of the range and lateral setup errors were small; however, the effects of the vertical/long setup and MLC error were significant in the cases without the spacer. The means of the maximum absolute change from original plans across all scenarios in the rectum V53.5 GyE, V50 GyE, and V34.5 GyE were 1.3%, 1.5%, and 2.3% without the spacer, and 0.2%, 0.4%, and 1.3% with the spacer (P < 0.001, < 0.001, and = 0.0019). This study indicated that spacer injections were also effective in reducing the change in the rectal dose due to setup errors.
© 2021. Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prostate cancer; Proton therapy; Quality assurance; Robust; Setup error; Spacer

Year:  2021        PMID: 34313911     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-021-00632-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  23 in total

1.  Effect of intrafraction prostate motion on proton pencil beam scanning delivery: a quantitative assessment.

Authors:  Shikui Tang; Curtiland Deville; James McDonough; Zelig Tochner; Ken Kang-Hsin Wang; Neha Vapiwala; Stefan Both
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Clinical Implementation of Dual-energy CT for Proton Treatment Planning on Pseudo-monoenergetic CT scans.

Authors:  Patrick Wohlfahrt; Christian Möhler; Volker Hietschold; Stefan Menkel; Steffen Greilich; Mechthild Krause; Michael Baumann; Wolfgang Enghardt; Christian Richter
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Placement of SpaceOAR hydrogel spacer for prostate cancer patients treated with iodine-125 low-dose-rate brachytherapy.

Authors:  Masashi Morita; Takashi Fukagai; Kidai Hirayama; Jin Yamatoya; Tetsuo Noguchi; Yu Ogawa; Atsushi Igarashi; Akifumi Niiya; Masako Kato; Madoka Morota; Kazuhiko Oshinomi; Yoshio Ogawa; John L Lederer
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2019-10-06       Impact factor: 3.369

4.  Evaluation of Robustness to Setup and Range Uncertainties for Head and Neck Patients Treated With Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Robert Malyapa; Matthew Lowe; Alessandra Bolsi; Antony J Lomax; Damien C Weber; Francesca Albertini
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Acute toxicity of image-guided hypofractionated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Koichiro Nakajima; Hiromitsu Iwata; Hiroyuki Ogino; Yukiko Hattori; Shingo Hashimoto; Mikiko Nakanishi; Toshiyuki Toshito; Yukihiro Umemoto; Shoichiro Iwatsuki; Yuta Shibamoto; Jun-Etsu Mizoe
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Dosimetric changes resulting from patient rotational setup errors in proton therapy prostate plans.

Authors:  Samir V Sejpal; Richard A Amos; Jaques B Bluett; Lawrence B Levy; Rajat J Kudchadker; Jennifer Johnson; Seungtaek Choi; Andrew K Lee
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Validation of rectal sparing throughout the course of proton therapy treatment in prostate cancer patients treated with SpaceOAR®.

Authors:  Samantha G Hedrick; Marcio Fagundes; Sara Case; Jackson Renegar; Marc Blakey; Mark Artz; Hao Chen; Ben Robison; Niek Schreuder
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Long-term outcomes of proton therapy for prostate cancer in Japan: a multi-institutional survey of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group.

Authors:  Hiromitsu Iwata; Hitoshi Ishikawa; Masaru Takagi; Tomoaki Okimoto; Sigeyuki Murayama; Tetsuo Akimoto; Hitoshi Wada; Takeshi Arimura; Yoshitaka Sato; Masayuki Araya; Jun-Etsu Mizoe; Masahiko Gosho; Katsumasa Nakamura; Hiroki Shirato; Hideyuki Sakurai
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer.

Authors:  Heeteak Chung; Jerimy Polf; Shahed Badiyan; Matthew Biagioli; Daniel Fernandez; Kujtim Latifi; Richard Wilder; Minesh Mehta; Michael Chuong
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Impact of intrafraction prostate motion on clinical target coverage in proton therapy: A simulation study of dosimetric differences in two delivery techniques.

Authors:  Zhong Su; Roelf Slopsema; Stella Flampouri; Zuofeng Li
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.