Comprehensive assessment of proton plans with three different beam delivery systems for multiple brain metastases.

IF 0.7 Q4 SURGERY Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Tara Gray, Anna Maria Kolano, Chieh-Wen Liu, Young-Bin Cho, Jeremy Donaghue, Samuel Chao, John Suh, Ping Xia, Jonathan Farr
{"title":"Comprehensive assessment of proton plans with three different beam delivery systems for multiple brain metastases.","authors":"Tara Gray, Anna Maria Kolano, Chieh-Wen Liu, Young-Bin Cho, Jeremy Donaghue, Samuel Chao, John Suh, Ping Xia, Jonathan Farr","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare plan quality among photon volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), Gamma Knife, and three different proton beam modalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-five brain lesions from 20 patients were planned with three different proton spot size ranges of cyclotron-generated proton beams, CPBs (spot size σ: 2.7-7.0 mm), linear accelerator proton beams, LPBs (σ: 2.9-5.5 mm), and linear accelerator proton minibeams, LPMBs (σ: 0.9-3.9 mm), with and without apertures and compared against photon VMAT and Gamma Knife plans. Dose coverage to each lesion for each proton and photon plan was set to 99% of the GTV receiving the prescription (Rx) dose. All proton plans used ±2 mm setup uncertainty and ±2% range uncertainty in robust evaluation to achieve V<sub>100%Rx</sub> > 95% of the GTV. Apertures were applied to proton beams irradiating tumors <1 cm<sup>3</sup> volume and located <2.5 cm depth. Conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), V<sub>12 Gy</sub>, V<sub>4.5 Gy</sub>, and mean brain dose were compared across all plan types. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was utilized to determine statistical significance of dosimetric results compared between photon and proton plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When compared to CPB generated plans, average CI and GI were significantly better for the LPB and LPMB plans. Aperture-based IMPT plans showed improvement from Gamma Knife for all dosimetric metrics. Aperture-based IMPT plans also showed improvement in all dosimetric metrics for shallow tumors (d < 2.5 cm) when compared with non-aperture-based plans.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LPB and LPMB stand as excellent alternatives to CPB or photon therapy and significantly increase the preservation of normal tissue.</p>","PeriodicalId":16917,"journal":{"name":"Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT","volume":"9 2","pages":"145-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288651/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare plan quality among photon volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), Gamma Knife, and three different proton beam modalities.

Methods: Fifty-five brain lesions from 20 patients were planned with three different proton spot size ranges of cyclotron-generated proton beams, CPBs (spot size σ: 2.7-7.0 mm), linear accelerator proton beams, LPBs (σ: 2.9-5.5 mm), and linear accelerator proton minibeams, LPMBs (σ: 0.9-3.9 mm), with and without apertures and compared against photon VMAT and Gamma Knife plans. Dose coverage to each lesion for each proton and photon plan was set to 99% of the GTV receiving the prescription (Rx) dose. All proton plans used ±2 mm setup uncertainty and ±2% range uncertainty in robust evaluation to achieve V100%Rx > 95% of the GTV. Apertures were applied to proton beams irradiating tumors <1 cm3 volume and located <2.5 cm depth. Conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), V12 Gy, V4.5 Gy, and mean brain dose were compared across all plan types. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was utilized to determine statistical significance of dosimetric results compared between photon and proton plans.

Results: When compared to CPB generated plans, average CI and GI were significantly better for the LPB and LPMB plans. Aperture-based IMPT plans showed improvement from Gamma Knife for all dosimetric metrics. Aperture-based IMPT plans also showed improvement in all dosimetric metrics for shallow tumors (d < 2.5 cm) when compared with non-aperture-based plans.

Conclusion: The LPB and LPMB stand as excellent alternatives to CPB or photon therapy and significantly increase the preservation of normal tissue.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
采用三种不同的射束传输系统对治疗多发性脑转移瘤的质子计划进行综合评估。
目的:比较光子容积弧治疗(VMAT)、伽玛刀和三种不同质子束模式的计划质量:用回旋加速器产生的质子束CPBs(光斑尺寸σ:2.7-7.0毫米)、直线加速器质子束LPBs(σ:2.9-5.5毫米)和直线加速器质子小光束LPMBs(σ:0.9-3.9毫米)三种不同的质子光斑尺寸范围对20名患者的55个脑部病灶进行计划,并与光子VMAT和伽玛刀计划进行比较。每种质子和光子计划对每个病灶的剂量覆盖率都设定为接受处方(Rx)剂量的 GTV 的 99%。所有质子计划都在稳健评估中使用了±2毫米设置不确定性和±2%范围不确定性,以实现V100%Rx > 95%的GTV。所有计划类型的质子束照射肿瘤3个体积和12 Gy、V4.5 Gy的孔径以及平均脑剂量进行了比较。利用Wilcoxon符号秩检验来确定光子和质子计划之间剂量测定结果的统计学意义:结果:与 CPB 生成的计划相比,LPB 和 LPMB 计划的平均 CI 和 GI 明显更好。基于光圈的 IMPT 计划在所有剂量学指标上都优于伽玛刀。与非基于孔径的计划相比,基于孔径的 IMPT 计划在浅表肿瘤(d < 2.5 厘米)的所有剂量学指标上都有所改进:结论:LPB 和 LPMB 是 CPB 或光子疗法的绝佳替代方案,可显著提高正常组织的保存率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A single center, inter-observer evaluation of vestibular schwannoma stereotactic radiosurgery and its dosimetric impact. Bilateral anterior cingulotomy with Gamma Knife radiosurgery: Another alternative for the treatment of non-oncologic intractable chronic pain. Cytoreductive single-fraction stereotactic radiation therapy prior to living donor transplantation for inoperable liver-confined metastatic rectal cancer. Emergency SBRT to trachea and carina for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the trachea with partial airway obstruction. Experience of Gamma Knife radiosurgery for treatment of brain metastases in pregnancy with literature review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1