International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022
A Systematic Comparison of Dose Distributions Delivered in 125I Plaque Brachytherapy and Proton Radiation Therapy for Ocular Melanoma.
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.
Trofimov Alexei V, Aronow Mary E, Gragoudas Evangelos S, Keane Florence K, Kim Ivana K, Shih Helen A, Bhagwat Mandar S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To characterize dose distributions with 125I plaque brachytherapy compared with proton radiation therapy for ocular melanoma for relevant clinical scenarios, based on tumor base diameter (d), apical height (h), and location.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Plaque and proton treatment plans were created for 4 groups of cases: (1) REF: 39 instances of reference midsize circular-base tumor (d = 12 mm, h = 5 mm), in locations varying by retinal clock hours and distance to fovea, optic disc, and corneal limbus; (2) SUP: 25 superiorly located; (3) TEMP: 25 temporal; and (4) NAS: 25 nasally located tumors that were a fixed distance from the fovea but varying in d (6-18 mm) and h (3-11 mm). For both modalities, 111 unique scenarios were characterized in terms of the distance to points of interest, doses delivered to fovea, optic disc, optic nerve at 3 mm posterior to the disc (ON@3mm), lens, and retina. Comparative statistical evaluation was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: Superior dose distributions favored plaque for sparing of (1) fovea in large (d + h ≥ 21 mm) NAS tumors; (2) ON@3mm in REF cases located ≤4 disc diameters from disc, and in NAS overall. Protons achieved superior dose sparing of (1) fovea and optic disc in REF, SUP, and TEMP; (2) ON@3mm in REF >4 disc diameters from disc, and in SUP and TEMP; and (3) the lens center overall and lens periphery in REF ≤6 mm from the corneal limbus, and in TEMP with h = 3 mm. Although protons could completely spare sections of the retina, plaque dose was more target conformal in the high-dose range (50% and 90% of prescription dose).
CONCLUSIONS: Although comparison between plaque and proton therapy is not straightforward because of the disparity in dose rate, prescriptions, applicators, and delivery techniques, it is possible to identify distinctions between dose distributions, which could help inform decisions by providers and patients.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Plaque and proton treatment plans were created for 4 groups of cases: (1) REF: 39 instances of reference midsize circular-base tumor (d = 12 mm, h = 5 mm), in locations varying by retinal clock hours and distance to fovea, optic disc, and corneal limbus; (2) SUP: 25 superiorly located; (3) TEMP: 25 temporal; and (4) NAS: 25 nasally located tumors that were a fixed distance from the fovea but varying in d (6-18 mm) and h (3-11 mm). For both modalities, 111 unique scenarios were characterized in terms of the distance to points of interest, doses delivered to fovea, optic disc, optic nerve at 3 mm posterior to the disc (ON@3mm), lens, and retina. Comparative statistical evaluation was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: Superior dose distributions favored plaque for sparing of (1) fovea in large (d + h ≥ 21 mm) NAS tumors; (2) ON@3mm in REF cases located ≤4 disc diameters from disc, and in NAS overall. Protons achieved superior dose sparing of (1) fovea and optic disc in REF, SUP, and TEMP; (2) ON@3mm in REF >4 disc diameters from disc, and in SUP and TEMP; and (3) the lens center overall and lens periphery in REF ≤6 mm from the corneal limbus, and in TEMP with h = 3 mm. Although protons could completely spare sections of the retina, plaque dose was more target conformal in the high-dose range (50% and 90% of prescription dose).
CONCLUSIONS: Although comparison between plaque and proton therapy is not straightforward because of the disparity in dose rate, prescriptions, applicators, and delivery techniques, it is possible to identify distinctions between dose distributions, which could help inform decisions by providers and patients.