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

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Tara Gray, Chieh-Wen Liu, Anna Maria Kolano, Jeremy Donaghue, Kevin Stephans, Gregory Videtic, Ping Xia, Jonathan Farr
{"title":"Assessing proton plans with 3 different beam lines vs photon plans for early-stage lung cancer.","authors":"Tara Gray, Chieh-Wen Liu, Anna Maria Kolano, Jeremy Donaghue, Kevin Stephans, Gregory Videtic, Ping Xia, Jonathan Farr","doi":"10.1016/j.meddos.2025.01.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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> > 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 (p < 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 (p < 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 > 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49837,"journal":{"name":"Medical Dosimetry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Dosimetry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2025.01.006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信