Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2024
Comparing interplay effects in scanned proton therapy of lung cancer: Free breathing with various layer and volume rescanning versus respiratory gating with different gate widths.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tominaga Yuki, Suga Masaki, Takeda Mikuni, Yamamoto Yuki, Akagi Takashi, Kato Takahiro, Tokumaru Sunao, Yamamoto Michinori, Oita Masataka
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We investigated interplay effects and treatment time (TT) in scanned proton therapy for lung cancer patients. We compared free-breathing (FB) approaches with multiple rescanning strategies and respiratory-gating (RG) methods with various gating widths to identify the superior irradiation technique.
METHODS: Plans were created with 4/1, 2/2, and 1/4 layered/volume rescans of FB (L4V1, L2V2, and L1V4), and 50%, 30%, and 10% gating widths of the total respiratory curves (G50, G30, and G10) of the RG plans with L4V1. We calculated 4-dimensional dynamic doses assuming a constant sinusoidal curve for six irradiation methods. The reconstructed doses per fraction were compared with planned doses in terms of dose differences in 99% clinical-target-volume (CTV) (ΔD99%), near-maximum dose differences (ΔD2%) at organs-at-risk (OARs), and TT.
RESULTS: The mean/minimum CTV ΔD99% values for FB were -1.0%/-4.9%, -0.8%/-4.3%, and -0.1%/-1.0% for L4V1, L2V2, and L1V4, respectively. Those for RG were -0.3%/-1.7%, -0.1%/-1.0%, and 0.0%/-0.5% for G50, G30, and G10, respectively. The CTV ΔD99% of the RGs with less than 50% gate width and the FBs of L1V4 were within the desired tolerance (±3.0%), and the OARs ΔD2% for RG were lower than those for FB. The mean TTs were 90, 326, 824, 158, 203, and 422 s for L4V1, L2V2, L1V4, G50, G30, and G10, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: FB (L4V1) is the most efficient treatment, but not necessarily the optimal choice due to interplay effects. To satisfy both TT extensions and interplay, RG with a gate width as large as possible within safety limits is desirable.
METHODS: Plans were created with 4/1, 2/2, and 1/4 layered/volume rescans of FB (L4V1, L2V2, and L1V4), and 50%, 30%, and 10% gating widths of the total respiratory curves (G50, G30, and G10) of the RG plans with L4V1. We calculated 4-dimensional dynamic doses assuming a constant sinusoidal curve for six irradiation methods. The reconstructed doses per fraction were compared with planned doses in terms of dose differences in 99% clinical-target-volume (CTV) (ΔD99%), near-maximum dose differences (ΔD2%) at organs-at-risk (OARs), and TT.
RESULTS: The mean/minimum CTV ΔD99% values for FB were -1.0%/-4.9%, -0.8%/-4.3%, and -0.1%/-1.0% for L4V1, L2V2, and L1V4, respectively. Those for RG were -0.3%/-1.7%, -0.1%/-1.0%, and 0.0%/-0.5% for G50, G30, and G10, respectively. The CTV ΔD99% of the RGs with less than 50% gate width and the FBs of L1V4 were within the desired tolerance (±3.0%), and the OARs ΔD2% for RG were lower than those for FB. The mean TTs were 90, 326, 824, 158, 203, and 422 s for L4V1, L2V2, L1V4, G50, G30, and G10, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: FB (L4V1) is the most efficient treatment, but not necessarily the optimal choice due to interplay effects. To satisfy both TT extensions and interplay, RG with a gate width as large as possible within safety limits is desirable.