Literature DB >> 7716264

A comparison of proton and megavoltage X-ray treatment planning for prostate cancer.

M Lee1, C Wynne, S Webb, A E Nahum, D Dearnaley.   

Abstract

Conformal photon and proton therapy plans for prostate cancer have been compared in an attempt to quantify the potential advantages of using protons. Two X-ray plans (3-field, 6-field) and a 2-field proton plan were made and compared for each of 20 T3 prostate patients with the aid of the 3D planning system VOXELPLAN. Dose distributions were analysed in terms of dose-volume histograms (DVH). Tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were computed using our own and the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models, respectively. The study shows that on average the proton technique results in the best dose distribution, giving the lowest rectal complication probability, and also that the 3-field X-ray technique is more effective than the 6-field X-ray technique in sparing the rectum. At 5% rectal NTCP, the predicted proton average TCP for the 20 patients is 2% (in absolute terms) greater than that obtained using 3-field X-ray therapy. For 7 of the patients the gain in TCP is more than 3%. For the same rectal NTCP as the 3-field X-ray plan with a 64 Gy mean target dose, the use of protons increases the TCP by 2% on average, but for 5 of the patients the increases are greater than 4%. The result is in general positive towards the use of protons but a few patients do not benefit from it and this indicates the importance of patient selection for maximum clinical benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7716264     DOI: 10.1016/0167-8140(94)90359-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  5 in total

1.  The NAC proton treatment planning system.

Authors:  A N Schreuder; D T Jones; J E Symons; E A De Kock; J K Hough; J Wilson; F J Vernimmen; W Schlegel; A Höss; M Lee
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  An Integrated Approach Reveals DNA Damage and Proteotoxic Stress as Main Effects of Proton Radiation in S. cerevisiae.

Authors:  Laura Vanderwaeren; Rüveyda Dok; Karin Voordeckers; Laura Vandemaele; Kevin J Verstrepen; Sandra Nuyts
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-05-14       Impact factor: 6.208

3.  [Comparison of different 3-dimensional irradiation techniques in local radiotherapy of prostatic carcinoma].

Authors:  S Koswig; S Dinges; A Buchali; D Böhmer; J Salk; P Rosenthal; C Harder; L Schlenger; V Budach
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  A comparison of the dose distributions from three proton treatment planning systems in the planning of meningioma patients with single-field uniform dose pencil beam scanning.

Authors:  Paul J Doolan; Jailan Alshaikhi; Ivan Rosenberg; Chris G Ainsley; Adam Gibson; Derek D'Souza; El Hassane Bentefour; Gary Royle
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 5.  Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.174

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.