RESUMEN
The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum proton kinetic energy required to treat a given percentage of patients eligible for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with coplanar arc-based proton therapy, contingent upon the number and location of gantry angles used. Treatment plans from 100 consecutive patients treated with SRS at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center between June of 2007 and March of 2010 were analyzed. For each target volume within each patient, in-house software was used to place proton pencil beam spots over the distal surface of the target volume from 51 equally-spaced gantry angles of up to 360°. For each beam spot, the radiological path length from the surface of the patient to the distal boundary of the target was then calculated along a ray from the gantry location to the location of the beam spot. This data was used to generate a maximum proton energy requirement for each patient as a function of the arc length that would be spanned by the gantry angles used in a given treatment. If only a single treatment angle is required, 100% of the patients included in the study could be treated by a proton beam with a maximum kinetic energy of 118 MeV. As the length of the treatment arc is increased to 90°, 180°, 270°, and 360°, the maximum energy requirement increases to 127, 145, 156, and 179 MeV, respectively. A very high percentage of SRS patients could be treated at relatively low proton energies if the gantry angles used in the treatment plan do not span a large treatment arc. Maximum proton kinetic energy requirements increase linearly with size of the treatment arc.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias/radioterapia , Neoplasias/cirugía , Fotones/uso terapéutico , Radiocirugia/métodos , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Humanos , Cinética , Neoplasias/patología , Aceleradores de Partículas , Traumatismos por Radiación/patología , Dosificación RadioterapéuticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare left-sided whole breast conventional and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment plans were created for 10 consecutive patients. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), forward-planned IMRT (for-IMRT), and inverse-planned IMRT (inv-IMRT) used two tangent beams. For-IMRT utilized up to four segments per beam. For helical tomotherapy (HT) plans, beamlet entrance and/or exit to critical structures was blocked. Topotherapy plans, which used static gantry angles with simultaneous couch translation and inverse-planned intensity modulation, used two tangent beams. Plans were normalized to 50Gy to 95% of the retracted PTV. RESULTS: Target max doses were reduced with for-IMRT compared to 3DCRT, which were further reduced with HT, topotherapy, and inv-IMRT. HT resulted in lowest heart and ipsilateral lung max doses, but had higher mean doses. Inv-IMRT and topotherapy reduced ipsilateral lung mean and max doses compared to 3DCRT and for-IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: All modalities evaluated provide adequate coverage of the intact breast. HT, topotherapy, and inv-IMRT can reduce high doses to the target and normal tissues, although HT results in increased low doses to large volume of normal tissue. For-IMRT improves target homogeneity compared with 3DCRT, but to a lesser degree than the inverse-planned modalities.