新型质子束几何结构对头颈部患者铅笔束扫描治疗的稳健性评价

Sheng Huang, Haoyang Liu, Jiajian Shen, H. Zhai, M. Kirk, B. Hartl, A. Lin, J. Mcdonough, S. Both, H. Lin
{"title":"新型质子束几何结构对头颈部患者铅笔束扫描治疗的稳健性评价","authors":"Sheng Huang, Haoyang Liu, Jiajian Shen, H. Zhai, M. Kirk, B. Hartl, A. Lin, J. Mcdonough, S. Both, H. Lin","doi":"10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To evaluate the robustness of \nhead and neck treatment using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique with \nrespect to range uncertainty (RU) and setup errors (SE), and to establish a \nrobust PBS planning strategy for future \ntreatment. Methods and Materials: Ten consecutive patients were planned \nwith a novel proton field geometry (combination of two posterior oblique fields \nand one anterior field with gradient dose match) using single-field uniform \ndose (SFUD) planning technique and the proton plans were dosimetrically \ncompared to two coplanar arc VMAT plans. Robustness of the plans, with \nrespect to range uncertainties (RU = ± 3% for proton) and setup errors (SE = \n2.25 mm for proton and VMAT), in terms of deviations to target coverage (CTV \nD98%) and OAR doses (max/mean), were evaluated and compared for each patient \nunder worst case scenarios. Results: Dosimetrically, PBS plans \nprovided better sparing to larynx (p = 0.005), oral cavity (p -1.1% ± \n1.3 % vs -0.4% ± 0.7% for nodal CTV and -1.4% ± \n1.2 vs -0.4% ± 0.5% % for boost CTV). Overall, the \nmagnitudes of variation of CTV D98% to combined SE and RU were found to be \nsimilar to the impact of the SE on the VMAT plans (-1.6% ± \n1.9% vs -1.7% ± 1.4% for nodal CTV and -1.9% ± \n1.6% vs -1.3% ± 1.5% for boost CTV). Compared to VMAT, a \nlarger range of relative dose deviations were found for OARs in proton plans, \nbut safe doses were maintained for cord (41.8 ± 3.6 Gy for PBS and 41.7 ± 3.9 \nGy for VMAT) and brainstem (35.2 ± 8.4 Gy for PBS and 36.2 ± 5.1 Gy for VMAT) \nin worst case scenarios. Conclusions: Compared to VMAT, proton plans \ncontaining three SFUD fields with superior-inferior gradient dose matching had \nimproved sparing to larynx, contralateral parotid and oral cavity, while \nproviding similar robustness of target coverage. Evaluation of OAR dose \nrobustness showed higher sensitivities to uncertainties for proton plans, but \nsafe dose levels were maintained for cord and brainstem.","PeriodicalId":14028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robustness Evaluation of a Novel Proton Beam Geometry for Head and Neck Patients Treated with Pencil Beam Scanning Therapy\",\"authors\":\"Sheng Huang, Haoyang Liu, Jiajian Shen, H. Zhai, M. Kirk, B. Hartl, A. Lin, J. Mcdonough, S. Both, H. Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: To evaluate the robustness of \\nhead and neck treatment using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique with \\nrespect to range uncertainty (RU) and setup errors (SE), and to establish a \\nrobust PBS planning strategy for future \\ntreatment. Methods and Materials: Ten consecutive patients were planned \\nwith a novel proton field geometry (combination of two posterior oblique fields \\nand one anterior field with gradient dose match) using single-field uniform \\ndose (SFUD) planning technique and the proton plans were dosimetrically \\ncompared to two coplanar arc VMAT plans. Robustness of the plans, with \\nrespect to range uncertainties (RU = ± 3% for proton) and setup errors (SE = \\n2.25 mm for proton and VMAT), in terms of deviations to target coverage (CTV \\nD98%) and OAR doses (max/mean), were evaluated and compared for each patient \\nunder worst case scenarios. Results: Dosimetrically, PBS plans \\nprovided better sparing to larynx (p = 0.005), oral cavity (p -1.1% ± \\n1.3 % vs -0.4% ± 0.7% for nodal CTV and -1.4% ± \\n1.2 vs -0.4% ± 0.5% % for boost CTV). Overall, the \\nmagnitudes of variation of CTV D98% to combined SE and RU were found to be \\nsimilar to the impact of the SE on the VMAT plans (-1.6% ± \\n1.9% vs -1.7% ± 1.4% for nodal CTV and -1.9% ± \\n1.6% vs -1.3% ± 1.5% for boost CTV). Compared to VMAT, a \\nlarger range of relative dose deviations were found for OARs in proton plans, \\nbut safe doses were maintained for cord (41.8 ± 3.6 Gy for PBS and 41.7 ± 3.9 \\nGy for VMAT) and brainstem (35.2 ± 8.4 Gy for PBS and 36.2 ± 5.1 Gy for VMAT) \\nin worst case scenarios. Conclusions: Compared to VMAT, proton plans \\ncontaining three SFUD fields with superior-inferior gradient dose matching had \\nimproved sparing to larynx, contralateral parotid and oral cavity, while \\nproviding similar robustness of target coverage. Evaluation of OAR dose \\nrobustness showed higher sensitivities to uncertainties for proton plans, but \\nsafe dose levels were maintained for cord and brainstem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:评估质子铅笔束扫描(PBS)技术在范围不确定性(RU)和设置误差(SE)方面的头颈部治疗的稳健性,并为未来的治疗建立一个稳健的PBS计划策略。方法与材料:采用单场均匀剂量(SFUD)计划技术,对连续10例患者进行新型质子场几何(两个后斜场和一个前斜场的组合,剂量梯度匹配)计划,并将质子计划与两个共面弧VMAT计划进行剂量学比较。在最坏情况下,评估并比较每个患者的计划的稳健性,包括范围不确定性(质子的RU =±3%)和设置误差(质子和VMAT的SE = 2.25 mm),与目标覆盖率(CTV D98%)和OAR剂量(最大/平均)的偏差。结果:剂量学上,PBS计划对喉部(p = 0.005)和口腔(p -1.1%±1.3% vs -0.4%±0.7%淋巴结CTV和-1.4%±1.2 vs -0.4%±0.5% boost CTV)提供了更好的保护。总体而言,CTV D98%对SE和RU组合的变化幅度与SE对VMAT计划的影响相似(节点CTV为-1.6%±1.9% vs -1.7%±1.4%,增压CTV为-1.9%±1.6% vs -1.3%±1.5%)。与VMAT相比,质子计划中桨叶的相对剂量偏差范围更大,但在最坏情况下,脊髓(PBS为41.8±3.6 Gy, VMAT为41.7±3.9 Gy)和脑干(PBS为35.2±8.4 Gy, VMAT为36.2±5.1 Gy)的安全剂量保持不变。结论:与VMAT相比,含有三个SFUD场的质子方案具有优-差梯度剂量匹配,改善了对喉、对侧腮腺和口腔的保留,同时提供了相似的目标覆盖稳健性。OAR剂量稳健性评估显示,质子计划对不确定性具有较高的敏感性,但脊髓和脑干仍保持安全剂量水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Robustness Evaluation of a Novel Proton Beam Geometry for Head and Neck Patients Treated with Pencil Beam Scanning Therapy
Background: To evaluate the robustness of head and neck treatment using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique with respect to range uncertainty (RU) and setup errors (SE), and to establish a robust PBS planning strategy for future treatment. Methods and Materials: Ten consecutive patients were planned with a novel proton field geometry (combination of two posterior oblique fields and one anterior field with gradient dose match) using single-field uniform dose (SFUD) planning technique and the proton plans were dosimetrically compared to two coplanar arc VMAT plans. Robustness of the plans, with respect to range uncertainties (RU = ± 3% for proton) and setup errors (SE = 2.25 mm for proton and VMAT), in terms of deviations to target coverage (CTV D98%) and OAR doses (max/mean), were evaluated and compared for each patient under worst case scenarios. Results: Dosimetrically, PBS plans provided better sparing to larynx (p = 0.005), oral cavity (p -1.1% ± 1.3 % vs -0.4% ± 0.7% for nodal CTV and -1.4% ± 1.2 vs -0.4% ± 0.5% % for boost CTV). Overall, the magnitudes of variation of CTV D98% to combined SE and RU were found to be similar to the impact of the SE on the VMAT plans (-1.6% ± 1.9% vs -1.7% ± 1.4% for nodal CTV and -1.9% ± 1.6% vs -1.3% ± 1.5% for boost CTV). Compared to VMAT, a larger range of relative dose deviations were found for OARs in proton plans, but safe doses were maintained for cord (41.8 ± 3.6 Gy for PBS and 41.7 ± 3.9 Gy for VMAT) and brainstem (35.2 ± 8.4 Gy for PBS and 36.2 ± 5.1 Gy for VMAT) in worst case scenarios. Conclusions: Compared to VMAT, proton plans containing three SFUD fields with superior-inferior gradient dose matching had improved sparing to larynx, contralateral parotid and oral cavity, while providing similar robustness of target coverage. Evaluation of OAR dose robustness showed higher sensitivities to uncertainties for proton plans, but safe dose levels were maintained for cord and brainstem.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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