Assessing proton plans with three different beam delivery systems versus photon plans for head and neck tumors
Fuente:
Wiley Open Access
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Wiley
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1867015050260119552 |
|---|---|
| author | Tara Gray Chieh‐Wen Liu Saeed Ahmed Anna Maria Kolano Jeremy Donaghue Shlomo Koyfman Neil Woody Shauna R. Campbell Jonathan B. Farr Ping Xia |
| author_facet | Tara Gray Chieh‐Wen Liu Saeed Ahmed Anna Maria Kolano Jeremy Donaghue Shlomo Koyfman Neil Woody Shauna R. Campbell Jonathan B. Farr Ping Xia Tara Gray Chieh‐Wen Liu Saeed Ahmed Anna Maria Kolano Jeremy Donaghue Shlomo Koyfman Neil Woody Shauna R. Campbell Jonathan B. Farr Ping Xia |
| collection | Wiley Open Access |
| contents | Assessing proton plans with three different beam delivery systems versus photon plans for head and neck tumors Tara Gray Chieh‐Wen Liu Saeed Ahmed Anna Maria Kolano Jeremy Donaghue Shlomo Koyfman Neil Woody Shauna R. Campbell Jonathan B. Farr Ping Xia Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics AbstractPurposeTo compare plan quality among photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with robustness using three different proton beam delivery systems with various spot size (σ) ranges: cyclotron‐generated proton beams (CPBs) (σ: 2.7–7.0 mm), linear accelerator proton beams (LPBs) (σ: 2.9–5.5 mm), and linear accelerator proton mini beams (LPMBs) (σ: 0.8–3.9 mm) for the treatment of head and neck (HN) cancer with bilateral neck irradiation.MethodsTen patients treated for oropharynx cancer with bilateral neck irradiation were planned using CPBs, LPBs, LPMBs, and VMAT. The homogeneity index (HI), mean body dose, and defined volumetric doses for selected critical organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were compared. Set‐up uncertainties of ±3 mm and ± 3.5% range uncertainties were included in robust evaluation using V95%Rx > 95% (Volume that covers 95% of the target volume at 95% of the prescription (Rx) dose) to high dose and low dose CTV volumes (CTV_70 Gy and CTV_56 Gy). VMAT and proton plans were compared in terms of OAR doses and mean body dose only. Homogeneity Indices were compared among IMPT plans in addition to OAR doses. The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to evaluate statistical differences between evaluation metrics for VMAT plans and all proton plan types.ResultsOAR dose metrics were improved by 2% to 30% from CPB plans to LPB or LPMB plans. Compared to photon VMAT plans, all OAR doses except for mandible dose metrics were improved by 2% to 53% for all proton plans. The mean body dose was also improved by 7.5% from CPB to LPB and by 10.8% from CPB to LPMB. In addition, the mean body dose was also improved by 44% from VMAT to CPB, by 48% from VMAT to LPB, and by 50% from VMAT to LPMB plans. Compared to CPB plans, HI was significantly better (p < 0.05) for the LPB and LPMB plans. HI also improved considerably from VMAT to CPB, LPB, and LPMB. For both CTV_70 Gy and CTV_56 Gy, average robust evaluation across all worst‐case scenarios was slightly better for CPB plans, with an average of V95%Rx of the CTV_70 Gy of 97.6% ± 1.22%, followed by 97.2% ± 1.31% and 97.2% ± 1.35% for LPB and LPMB plans, respectively. Robustness for CTV_56 Gy showed comparable robustness across all proton plan types, with an average V95%Rx of 97.4% ± 0.87% for CPB, 97.4% ± 1.21%, and 97.5% ± 1.08% for CPB, LPB, and LPMB plans, respectively.ConclusionWith decreased spot size, the LPB and LPMB are excellent alternatives to VMAT and CPB therapy and can significantly reduce the dose to normal tissue. 10.1002/acm2.70013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/acm2.70013 |
| format | Artículo Open Access |
| id | wiley_oa_10_1002_acm2_70013 |
| institution | Wiley Open Access |
| license_str_mv | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | wiley_oa |
| spellingShingle | Assessing proton plans with three different beam delivery systems versus photon plans for head and neck tumors Tara Gray Chieh‐Wen Liu Saeed Ahmed Anna Maria Kolano Jeremy Donaghue Shlomo Koyfman Neil Woody Shauna R. Campbell Jonathan B. Farr Ping Xia Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics Assessing proton plans with three different beam delivery systems versus photon plans for head and neck tumors Tara Gray Chieh‐Wen Liu Saeed Ahmed Anna Maria Kolano Jeremy Donaghue Shlomo Koyfman Neil Woody Shauna R. Campbell Jonathan B. Farr Ping Xia Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics AbstractPurposeTo compare plan quality among photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with robustness using three different proton beam delivery systems with various spot size (σ) ranges: cyclotron‐generated proton beams (CPBs) (σ: 2.7–7.0 mm), linear accelerator proton beams (LPBs) (σ: 2.9–5.5 mm), and linear accelerator proton mini beams (LPMBs) (σ: 0.8–3.9 mm) for the treatment of head and neck (HN) cancer with bilateral neck irradiation.MethodsTen patients treated for oropharynx cancer with bilateral neck irradiation were planned using CPBs, LPBs, LPMBs, and VMAT. The homogeneity index (HI), mean body dose, and defined volumetric doses for selected critical organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were compared. Set‐up uncertainties of ±3 mm and ± 3.5% range uncertainties were included in robust evaluation using V95%Rx > 95% (Volume that covers 95% of the target volume at 95% of the prescription (Rx) dose) to high dose and low dose CTV volumes (CTV_70 Gy and CTV_56 Gy). VMAT and proton plans were compared in terms of OAR doses and mean body dose only. Homogeneity Indices were compared among IMPT plans in addition to OAR doses. The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to evaluate statistical differences between evaluation metrics for VMAT plans and all proton plan types.ResultsOAR dose metrics were improved by 2% to 30% from CPB plans to LPB or LPMB plans. Compared to photon VMAT plans, all OAR doses except for mandible dose metrics were improved by 2% to 53% for all proton plans. The mean body dose was also improved by 7.5% from CPB to LPB and by 10.8% from CPB to LPMB. In addition, the mean body dose was also improved by 44% from VMAT to CPB, by 48% from VMAT to LPB, and by 50% from VMAT to LPMB plans. Compared to CPB plans, HI was significantly better (p < 0.05) for the LPB and LPMB plans. HI also improved considerably from VMAT to CPB, LPB, and LPMB. For both CTV_70 Gy and CTV_56 Gy, average robust evaluation across all worst‐case scenarios was slightly better for CPB plans, with an average of V95%Rx of the CTV_70 Gy of 97.6% ± 1.22%, followed by 97.2% ± 1.31% and 97.2% ± 1.35% for LPB and LPMB plans, respectively. Robustness for CTV_56 Gy showed comparable robustness across all proton plan types, with an average V95%Rx of 97.4% ± 0.87% for CPB, 97.4% ± 1.21%, and 97.5% ± 1.08% for CPB, LPB, and LPMB plans, respectively.ConclusionWith decreased spot size, the LPB and LPMB are excellent alternatives to VMAT and CPB therapy and can significantly reduce the dose to normal tissue. 10.1002/acm2.70013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| title | Assessing proton plans with three different beam delivery systems versus photon plans for head and neck tumors |
| topic | Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics |
| url | https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70013 |