食管癌动态质子弧治疗方案研究

IF 3.3 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.phro.2025.100837

Macarena Chocan Vera , Anne-Catherine Wéra , Hamdiye Ozan , Erik Engwall , Viktor Wase , Otte Marthin , Johan Sundström , Sophie Wuyckens , Karin Haustermans , Ana M. Barragán-Montero , Kevin Souris , John A. Lee , Edmond Sterpin

{"title":"食管癌动态质子弧治疗方案研究","authors":"Macarena Chocan Vera , Anne-Catherine Wéra , Hamdiye Ozan , Erik Engwall , Viktor Wase , Otte Marthin , Johan Sundström , Sophie Wuyckens , Karin Haustermans , Ana M. Barragán-Montero , Kevin Souris , John A. Lee , Edmond Sterpin","doi":"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Particle Arc Therapy (PAT) is considered a promising technique to improve conformity and reduce toxicities. Robustly optimized PAT plans were evaluated versus Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for oesophageal cancer in 17 patients. Impact of motion, setup and range uncertainties on target coverage, plan quality and Organs At Risk (OAR) doses were assessed. PAT (two 80°–200°arcs) reduced OAR doses (spinal canal <span><math><msub><mrow><mi>D</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>05</mn><msup><mrow><mtext>cm</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>3</mn></mrow></msup></mrow></msub></math></span>: 5.12 Gy (12.8%), lungs and heart <span><math><msub><mrow><mi>D</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>mean</mtext></mrow></msub></math></span>: 0.39 Gy (8.8%) and 0.83 Gy (10.5%)) while maintaining robustness. Similar toxicities were observed, but delivery time was doubled for PAT, indicating that further development is needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36850,"journal":{"name":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","volume":"36 ","pages":"Article 100837"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dynamic proton arc treatment planning study for oesophageal cancer\",\"authors\":\"Macarena Chocan Vera , Anne-Catherine Wéra , Hamdiye Ozan , Erik Engwall , Viktor Wase , Otte Marthin , Johan Sundström , Sophie Wuyckens , Karin Haustermans , Ana M. Barragán-Montero , Kevin Souris , John A. Lee , Edmond Sterpin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.phro.2025.100837\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Particle Arc Therapy (PAT) is considered a promising technique to improve conformity and reduce toxicities. Robustly optimized PAT plans were evaluated versus Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for oesophageal cancer in 17 patients. Impact of motion, setup and range uncertainties on target coverage, plan quality and Organs At Risk (OAR) doses were assessed. PAT (two 80°–200°arcs) reduced OAR doses (spinal canal <span><math><msub><mrow><mi>D</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>05</mn><msup><mrow><mtext>cm</mtext></mrow><mrow><mn>3</mn></mrow></msup></mrow></msub></math></span>: 5.12 Gy (12.8%), lungs and heart <span><math><msub><mrow><mi>D</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>mean</mtext></mrow></msub></math></span>: 0.39 Gy (8.8%) and 0.83 Gy (10.5%)) while maintaining robustness. Similar toxicities were observed, but delivery time was doubled for PAT, indicating that further development is needed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\"36 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100837\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631625001423\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631625001423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

粒子弧治疗（PAT）被认为是一种很有前途的改善依从性和减少毒性的技术。对17例食管癌患者进行了稳健优化的PAT方案与强度调节质子治疗（IMPT）的比较。评估运动、设置和范围不确定性对目标覆盖、计划质量和器官危险（OAR）剂量的影响。PAT（两个80°-200°弧）在保持稳健性的同时减少了桨叶剂量(椎管D0.05cm3: 5.12 Gy（12.8%)，肺和心脏Dmean: 0.39 Gy（8.8%）和0.83 Gy(10.5%)）。观察到类似的毒性，但PAT的给药时间增加了一倍，表明需要进一步开发。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

Dynamic proton arc treatment planning study for oesophageal cancer

查看原文本刊更多论文

Dynamic proton arc treatment planning study for oesophageal cancer

Particle Arc Therapy (PAT) is considered a promising technique to improve conformity and reduce toxicities. Robustly optimized PAT plans were evaluated versus Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for oesophageal cancer in 17 patients. Impact of motion, setup and range uncertainties on target coverage, plan quality and Organs At Risk (OAR) doses were assessed. PAT (two 80°–200°arcs) reduced OAR doses (spinal canal

D_{0.05 {cm}^{3}}

: 5.12 Gy (12.8%), lungs and heart

D_{mean}

: 0.39 Gy (8.8%) and 0.83 Gy (10.5%)) while maintaining robustness. Similar toxicities were observed, but delivery time was doubled for PAT, indicating that further development is needed.

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

Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology Physics and Astronomy-Radiation

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

18.90%

发文量

审稿时长

6 weeks