Assessing proton plans with 3 different beam lines vs photon plans for early-stage lung cancer

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY Medical Dosimetry Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2025.01.006
Tara Gray PhD , Chieh-Wen Liu PhD , Anna Maria Kolano PhD , Jeremy Donaghue MS , Kevin Stephans MD , Gregory Videtic MD , Ping Xia PhD , Jonathan Farr DSc
{"title":"Assessing proton plans with 3 different beam lines vs photon plans for early-stage lung cancer","authors":"Tara Gray PhD ,&nbsp;Chieh-Wen Liu PhD ,&nbsp;Anna Maria Kolano PhD ,&nbsp;Jeremy Donaghue MS ,&nbsp;Kevin Stephans MD ,&nbsp;Gregory Videtic MD ,&nbsp;Ping Xia PhD ,&nbsp;Jonathan Farr DSc","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.01.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To compare proton plans (IMPT) to VMAT plans and intercompare proton plans using 3 different spot sizes with robustness: cyclotron-generated proton beams (CPB) (σ: 2.7-7.0 mm), linear accelerator proton beams (LPB) (σ: 2.9-5.5 mm), and linear accelerator proton mini beams (LPMB) (σ: 0.9-3.9 mm) for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. Twenty-two lesions from a total of twenty patients with early-stage lung cancer, originally treated with SBRT, were replanned using CPBs, LPBs, LPMBs, and VMAT using the same treatment planning system and dose calculation algorithm. The average intensity projected CTs (AIP-CT) were used for planning and 3D robust optimization was used for all proton plans. Conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), R<sub>50</sub>, lung V<sub>20</sub> <sub>Gy</sub>, and mean lung dose were compared among all proton plan types and with VMAT plans. Set-up uncertainties of ±5 mm and ±3.5% range uncertainty were included in the IMPT robust optimization and evaluation, using V<sub>100%Rx</sub> &gt; 98% of the ITV. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate statistical differences between VMAT plans and all proton plan types. When compared to VMAT plans, all proton plans generally show improvement in CI, HI, Lung V<sub>20</sub> <sub>Gy</sub>, Mean lung dose, and R<sub>50</sub>. The LPMB plans showed the most improvement from VMAT plans. Comparison between CPB and linear accelerator proton plans showed statistical significance (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). R<sub>50</sub> and mean lung dose for the CPB, LPB and LPMB plans were 3.6 ± 0.9, 3.1 ± 0.8 and 2.6 ± 0.6; 2.2 ± 1.1 Gy, 1.9 ± 1 Gy and 1.6 ± 0.9 Gy, respectively (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). The mean R<sub>50</sub> and mean lung dose from the VMAT plans were 4.1 ± 0.4 and 3.8 ± 2 Gy, respectively. The V<sub>20</sub> <sub>Gy</sub> (%) of lung and mean lung dose were improved across all proton plans when compared with those of VMAT plans. When evaluated for robustness in the worst-case scenario at V<sub>100%Rx</sub> of the ITV &gt; 98%, average ITV coverage of 98.6 ± 0.3%, 98.6 ± 0.6%, and 98.9 ± 0.6% were achieved for CPB plans, LPB plans, and LPMB plans, respectively. With decreased spot size, the LPB and LPMB plans are excellent alternatives to VMAT and cyclotron-generated proton plans with reduced dose to normal tissue and improved plan quality for early-stage lung cancer treatments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":"50 3","pages":"Pages 209-215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Dosimetry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958394725000081","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare proton plans (IMPT) to VMAT plans and intercompare proton plans using 3 different spot sizes with robustness: cyclotron-generated proton beams (CPB) (σ: 2.7-7.0 mm), linear accelerator proton beams (LPB) (σ: 2.9-5.5 mm), and linear accelerator proton mini beams (LPMB) (σ: 0.9-3.9 mm) for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. Twenty-two lesions from a total of twenty patients with early-stage lung cancer, originally treated with SBRT, were replanned using CPBs, LPBs, LPMBs, and VMAT using the same treatment planning system and dose calculation algorithm. The average intensity projected CTs (AIP-CT) were used for planning and 3D robust optimization was used for all proton plans. Conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), R50, lung V20Gy, and mean lung dose were compared among all proton plan types and with VMAT plans. Set-up uncertainties of ±5 mm and ±3.5% range uncertainty were included in the IMPT robust optimization and evaluation, using V100%Rx > 98% of the ITV. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate statistical differences between VMAT plans and all proton plan types. When compared to VMAT plans, all proton plans generally show improvement in CI, HI, Lung V20Gy, Mean lung dose, and R50. The LPMB plans showed the most improvement from VMAT plans. Comparison between CPB and linear accelerator proton plans showed statistical significance (p < 0.05). R50 and mean lung dose for the CPB, LPB and LPMB plans were 3.6 ± 0.9, 3.1 ± 0.8 and 2.6 ± 0.6; 2.2 ± 1.1 Gy, 1.9 ± 1 Gy and 1.6 ± 0.9 Gy, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean R50 and mean lung dose from the VMAT plans were 4.1 ± 0.4 and 3.8 ± 2 Gy, respectively. The V20Gy (%) of lung and mean lung dose were improved across all proton plans when compared with those of VMAT plans. When evaluated for robustness in the worst-case scenario at V100%Rx of the ITV > 98%, average ITV coverage of 98.6 ± 0.3%, 98.6 ± 0.6%, and 98.9 ± 0.6% were achieved for CPB plans, LPB plans, and LPMB plans, respectively. With decreased spot size, the LPB and LPMB plans are excellent alternatives to VMAT and cyclotron-generated proton plans with reduced dose to normal tissue and improved plan quality for early-stage lung cancer treatments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估3种不同束流线的质子计划与光子计划对早期肺癌的治疗效果。
比较质子计划(IMPT)与VMAT计划,并比较3种不同光斑大小的质子计划:回旋产生质子束(CPB) (σ: 2.7 ~ 7.0 mm)、直线加速器质子束(LPB) (σ: 2.9 ~ 5.5 mm)和直线加速器质子微型束(LPMB) (σ: 0.9 ~ 3.9 mm)治疗早期肺癌。共20例早期肺癌患者的22个病灶,最初接受SBRT治疗,使用相同的治疗计划系统和剂量计算算法,使用CPBs、LPBs、LPMBs和VMAT重新计划。使用平均强度投影ct (AIP-CT)进行规划,并对所有质子计划进行三维稳健优化。比较各质子计划类型及VMAT计划的符合性指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)、R50、肺V20 Gy、肺平均剂量。设置不确定度±5mm和±3.5%范围不确定度纳入IMPT稳健优化和评估,使用V100%Rx bb0 98%的ITV。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验评价VMAT计划与所有质子计划类型之间的统计学差异。与VMAT计划相比,所有质子计划通常显示CI, HI,肺V20 Gy,平均肺剂量和R50的改善。与VMAT计划相比,LPMB计划显示出最大的改善。CPB与直线加速器质子计划的比较具有统计学意义(p 50),CPB、LPB和LPMB计划的平均肺剂量分别为3.6 ± 0.9、3.1 ± 0.8和2.6 ± 0.6; 2.2±1.1  Gy, 1.9 ±1   Gy和1.6±0.9  Gy,(分别p 50,意味着肺剂量VMAT计划4.1 ±0.4和3.8  ±2  Gy,分别。与VMAT计划相比,所有质子计划的肺V20 Gy(%)和平均肺剂量均有所提高。在最坏情况下的稳健性评估中,在ITV bbb98 % rx下,CPB计划、LPB计划和LPMB计划的平均ITV覆盖率分别达到98.6 ± 0.3%、98.6 ± 0.6%和98.9 ± 0.6%。由于斑点大小减小,LPB和LPMB计划是VMAT和回旋产生质子计划的极好替代方案,对正常组织的剂量减少,计划质量提高,用于早期肺癌治疗。
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
Medical Dosimetry
Medical Dosimetry 医学-核医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Medical Dosimetry, the official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, is the key source of information on new developments for the medical dosimetrist. Practical and comprehensive in coverage, the journal features original contributions and review articles by medical dosimetrists, oncologists, physicists, and radiation therapy technologists on clinical applications and techniques of external beam, interstitial, intracavitary and intraluminal irradiation in cancer management. Articles dealing primarily with physics will be reviewed by a specially appointed team of experts in the field.
期刊最新文献
Dose calculation algorithm evaluation for cardiac radioablation of ventricular tachycardia. Fluence-corrected pencil beam algorithm for carbon ion therapy patient quality assurance in solid phantoms. Voxel-based model predicts proton-induced brain necrosis using let and ventricular distance. Improved scalp sparing using 10 MV photons in glioblastoma radiotherapy combined with adjuvant tumor treating fields: A dosimetric comparison. Dosimetric evaluation of titanium and carbon spinal fixation systems in radiotherapy: Comparison of two dose calculation algorithms.
×
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:604180095
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