美国质子治疗中心使用蒙特卡罗剂量计算的NRG肿瘤学调查。

IF 2.1 Q3 ONCOLOGY International Journal of Particle Therapy Pub Date : 2021-05-25 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.14338/IJPT-D-21-00004
Liyong Lin, Paige A Taylor, Jiajian Shen, Jatinder Saini, Minglei Kang, Charles B Simone, Jeffrey D Bradley, Zuofeng Li, Ying Xiao
{"title":"美国质子治疗中心使用蒙特卡罗剂量计算的NRG肿瘤学调查。","authors":"Liyong Lin,&nbsp;Paige A Taylor,&nbsp;Jiajian Shen,&nbsp;Jatinder Saini,&nbsp;Minglei Kang,&nbsp;Charles B Simone,&nbsp;Jeffrey D Bradley,&nbsp;Zuofeng Li,&nbsp;Ying Xiao","doi":"10.14338/IJPT-D-21-00004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose/objectives: </strong>Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation has appeared in primary commercial treatment-planning systems and various in-house platforms. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques complement MC capabilities. However, no publications have yet reported how proton therapy centers implement these new technologies, and a national survey is required to determine the feasibility of including MC and companion techniques in cooperative group clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Materials/methods: </strong>A 9-question survey was designed to query key clinical parameters: scope of MC utilization, validation methods for heterogeneities, clinical site-specific imaging guidance, proton range uncertainties, and how implants are handled. A national survey was distributed to all 29 operational US proton therapy centers on 13 May 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received responses from 25 centers (86% participation). Commercial MC was most commonly used for primary plan optimization (16 centers) or primary dose evaluation (18 centers), while in-house MC was used more frequently for secondary dose evaluation (7 centers). Based on the survey, MC was used infrequently for gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology and extremity compared with other more heterogeneous disease sites (<i>P</i> < .007). Although many centers had published DECT research, only 3/25 centers had implemented DECT clinically, either in the treatment-planning system or to override implant materials. Most centers (64%) treated patients with metal implants on a case-by-case basis, with a variety of methods reported. Twenty-four centers (96%) used MAR images and overrode the surrounding tissue artifacts; however, there was no consensus on how to determine metal dimension, materials density, or stopping powers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of MC for primary dose calculation and optimization was prevalent and, therefore, likely feasible for clinical trials. There was consensus to use MAR and override tissues surrounding metals but no consensus about how to use DECT and MAR for human tissues and implants. Development and standardization of these advanced technologies are strongly encouraged for vendors and clinical physicists.</p>","PeriodicalId":36923,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","volume":"8 2","pages":"73-81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8489489/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NRG Oncology Survey of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Use in US Proton Therapy Centers.\",\"authors\":\"Liyong Lin,&nbsp;Paige A Taylor,&nbsp;Jiajian Shen,&nbsp;Jatinder Saini,&nbsp;Minglei Kang,&nbsp;Charles B Simone,&nbsp;Jeffrey D Bradley,&nbsp;Zuofeng Li,&nbsp;Ying Xiao\",\"doi\":\"10.14338/IJPT-D-21-00004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose/objectives: </strong>Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation has appeared in primary commercial treatment-planning systems and various in-house platforms. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques complement MC capabilities. However, no publications have yet reported how proton therapy centers implement these new technologies, and a national survey is required to determine the feasibility of including MC and companion techniques in cooperative group clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Materials/methods: </strong>A 9-question survey was designed to query key clinical parameters: scope of MC utilization, validation methods for heterogeneities, clinical site-specific imaging guidance, proton range uncertainties, and how implants are handled. A national survey was distributed to all 29 operational US proton therapy centers on 13 May 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received responses from 25 centers (86% participation). Commercial MC was most commonly used for primary plan optimization (16 centers) or primary dose evaluation (18 centers), while in-house MC was used more frequently for secondary dose evaluation (7 centers). Based on the survey, MC was used infrequently for gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology and extremity compared with other more heterogeneous disease sites (<i>P</i> < .007). Although many centers had published DECT research, only 3/25 centers had implemented DECT clinically, either in the treatment-planning system or to override implant materials. Most centers (64%) treated patients with metal implants on a case-by-case basis, with a variety of methods reported. Twenty-four centers (96%) used MAR images and overrode the surrounding tissue artifacts; however, there was no consensus on how to determine metal dimension, materials density, or stopping powers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of MC for primary dose calculation and optimization was prevalent and, therefore, likely feasible for clinical trials. There was consensus to use MAR and override tissues surrounding metals but no consensus about how to use DECT and MAR for human tissues and implants. Development and standardization of these advanced technologies are strongly encouraged for vendors and clinical physicists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Particle Therapy\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"73-81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8489489/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Particle Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-D-21-00004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-D-21-00004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的/目标:蒙特卡罗(MC)剂量计算已经出现在主要的商业治疗计划系统和各种内部平台中。双能计算机断层扫描(DECT)和金属伪影还原(MAR)技术补充了MC的能力。然而,目前还没有出版物报道质子治疗中心如何实施这些新技术,需要进行全国调查以确定在合作小组临床试验中包括MC和伴随技术的可行性。材料/方法:一项包含9个问题的调查旨在查询关键的临床参数:MC的使用范围、异质性的验证方法、临床部位特异性成像指导、质子范围不确定性以及如何处理植入物。2019年5月13日,向所有29个正在运营的美国质子治疗中心分发了一项全国性调查。结果:我们收到了来自25个中心的回复(86%的参与率)。商业MC最常用于初级计划优化(16个中心)或初级剂量评估(18个中心),而内部MC更常用于次级剂量评估(7个中心)。根据调查,胃肠道、泌尿生殖系统、妇科和四肢与其他更异质性的疾病部位相比,MC的使用频率较低(P < .007)。尽管许多中心发表了DECT研究,但只有3/25的中心在临床实施了DECT,无论是在治疗计划系统中还是在植入材料上。大多数中心(64%)在个案基础上治疗金属种植体患者,报告了各种方法。24个中心(96%)使用了磁共振成像图像,覆盖了周围的组织伪影;然而,在如何确定金属尺寸、材料密度或停止功率方面没有达成共识。结论:MC用于初始剂量计算和优化是普遍的,因此在临床试验中可能是可行的。使用MAR和覆盖金属周围的组织是一致的,但对于如何使用DECT和MAR用于人体组织和植入物却没有共识。强烈鼓励供应商和临床物理学家开发和标准化这些先进技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
NRG Oncology Survey of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Use in US Proton Therapy Centers.

Purpose/objectives: Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation has appeared in primary commercial treatment-planning systems and various in-house platforms. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques complement MC capabilities. However, no publications have yet reported how proton therapy centers implement these new technologies, and a national survey is required to determine the feasibility of including MC and companion techniques in cooperative group clinical trials.

Materials/methods: A 9-question survey was designed to query key clinical parameters: scope of MC utilization, validation methods for heterogeneities, clinical site-specific imaging guidance, proton range uncertainties, and how implants are handled. A national survey was distributed to all 29 operational US proton therapy centers on 13 May 2019.

Results: We received responses from 25 centers (86% participation). Commercial MC was most commonly used for primary plan optimization (16 centers) or primary dose evaluation (18 centers), while in-house MC was used more frequently for secondary dose evaluation (7 centers). Based on the survey, MC was used infrequently for gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology and extremity compared with other more heterogeneous disease sites (P < .007). Although many centers had published DECT research, only 3/25 centers had implemented DECT clinically, either in the treatment-planning system or to override implant materials. Most centers (64%) treated patients with metal implants on a case-by-case basis, with a variety of methods reported. Twenty-four centers (96%) used MAR images and overrode the surrounding tissue artifacts; however, there was no consensus on how to determine metal dimension, materials density, or stopping powers.

Conclusion: The use of MC for primary dose calculation and optimization was prevalent and, therefore, likely feasible for clinical trials. There was consensus to use MAR and override tissues surrounding metals but no consensus about how to use DECT and MAR for human tissues and implants. Development and standardization of these advanced technologies are strongly encouraged for vendors and clinical physicists.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Particle Therapy
International Journal of Particle Therapy Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
23
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy in Japan: A Japanese National Registry Study. The Level of Circulating M-MDSCs as an Indicator for the Therapeutic Outcome of BNCT in End-Stage Malignant Brain Tumor Patients. Vaginal Mucosal Melanoma Cell Activation in Response to Photon or Carbon Ion Irradiation. Navigating a New Frontier: Evaluating Leadless Pacemakers in Proton Therapy. Cardiac Conduction System as an OAR in Radiation Therapy: Doses to SA/AV Nodes and Their Reduction.
×
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