A scanning dynamic collimator for spot-scanning proton minibeam production.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sotiropoulos M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8443660 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To improve the penumbra of low-energy beams used in spot-scanning proton therapy, various collimation systems have been proposed and used in clinics. In this paper, focused on patient-specific brass collimators, the collimator-scattered protons' physical and biological effects were investigated. The Geant4 Monte Carlo code was used to model the collimators mounted on the scanning nozzle of the Hokkaido University Hospital. A systematic survey was performed in water phantom with various-sized rectangular targets; range (5-20 cm), spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) (5-10 cm), and field size (2 × 2-16 × 16 cm2 ). It revealed that both the range and SOBP dependences of the physical dose increase had similar trends to passive scattering methods, that is, it increased largely with the range and slightly with the SOBP. The physical impact was maximized at the surface (3%-22% for the tested geometries) and decreased with depth. In contrast, the field size (FS) dependence differed from that observed in passive scattering: the increase was high for both small and large FSs. This may be attributed to the different phase-space shapes at the target boundary between the two dose delivery methods. Next, the biological impact was estimated based on the increase in dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd ) and relative biological effectiveness (RBE). The LETd of the collimator-scattered protons were several keV/?m higher than that of unscattered ones; however, since this large increase was observed only at the positions receiving a small scattered dose, the overall LETd increase was negligible. As a consequence, the RBE increase did not exceed 0.05. Finally, the effects on patient geometries were estimated by testing two patient plans, and a negligible RBE increase (0.9% at most in the critical organs at surface) was observed in both cases. Therefore, the impact of collimator-scattered protons is almost entirely attributed to the physical dose increase, while the RBE increase is negligible.
| S-EPMC6612695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSpot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPAT) is an emerging modality to improve plan conformality and delivery efficiency. A greedy and heuristic method is proposed in the existing SPAT algorithm to select energy layers and sequence energy switching with gantry rotation, which does not promise optimality in either dosimetry or efficiency. We aim to develop a method to solve the energy layer switching and dosimetry optimization problems in an integrated framework for SPAT.MethodsIn an integrated approach, energy layer optimization for spot-scanning proton arc therapy (ELO-SPAT) is formulated with a dose fidelity term, a group sparsity regularization, a log barrier regularization, and an energy sequencing (ES) penalty. The combination of L2,1/2-norm group sparsity regularization and log barrier function allows one energy layer being selected per control point. The ES regularization term sorts the delivery sequence from high energy to low energy to reduce the total energy layer switching time (ELST) and subsequently the total delivery time. Within the ES penalty, the gradient of layer weights between adjacent beams is first calculated along beam direction and then along energy direction. The gradients indicate energy switch patterns between two adjacent beams. The time-wise costly energy switch-up is more heavily penalized in the ES term. This ELO-SPAT method was tested on one frontal base-of-skull (BOS) patient, one chordoma (CHDM) patient with a simultaneous integrated boost, one bilateral head-and-neck (H&N) patient, and one lung (LNG) patient. We compared ELO-SPAT with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using discrete beams and SPArc by Ding et al. For the two arc algorithms, both the plans with and without energy sequencing were created and compared.ResultsEnergy layer optimization for spot-scanning proton arc therapy reduced the runtime of optimization by 84% on average compared with the greedy SPArc method. In both the ELO-SPAT plans with and without ES, one energy layer per control point was selected. Without ES regularization, the energy sequence was arbitrary, with around 40-60 switch-up for the tested cases. After adding ES regularization, the number of energy switch-up was reduced to less than 20. Compared with the energy sequenced SPArc plans, the ELO-SPAT plans with ES led to 24% less total ELST for synchrotron plans and 14% less for cyclotron plans. Both the ELO-SPAT and SPArc plans achieved better sparing compared with the IMPT plans for most Organs-at-risks (OARs), with or without ES. Without ES, the ELO-SPAT plans achieved further improvement of the OARs compared with the SPArc plans, with an averaged reduction of OAR [Dmean, Dmax] by [1.57, 3.34] GyRBE. Adding the ES regularization degraded the plan quality, but the ELO-SPAT plans still had comparable or slightly better sparing than the SPArc plans with ES, with an averaged reduction of OAR [Dmean, Dmax] by [1.42, 2.34] GyRBE.ConclusionWe developed a computationally efficient spot-scanning proton arc optimization method, which solved energy layer selection and sequencing in an integrated framework, generating plans with good dosimetry and high delivery efficiency.
| S-EPMC7234928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To develop and validate a novel delivery strategy for reducing the respiratory motion-induced dose uncertainty of spot-scanning proton therapy.The spot delivery sequence was optimized to reduce dose uncertainty. The effectiveness of the delivery sequence optimization was evaluated using measurements and patient simulation. One hundred ninety-one 2-dimensional measurements using different delivery sequences of a single-layer uniform pattern were obtained with a detector array on a 1-dimensional moving platform. Intensity modulated proton therapy plans were generated for 10 lung cancer patients, and dose uncertainties for different delivery sequences were evaluated by simulation.Without delivery sequence optimization, the maximum absolute dose error can be up to 97.2% in a single measurement, whereas the optimized delivery sequence results in a maximum absolute dose error of ?11.8%. In patient simulation, the optimized delivery sequence reduces the mean of fractional maximum absolute dose error compared with the regular delivery sequence by 3.3% to 10.6% (32.5-68.0% relative reduction) for different patients.Optimizing the delivery sequence can reduce dose uncertainty due to respiratory motion in spot-scanning proton therapy, assuming the 4-dimensional CT is a true representation of the patients' breathing patterns.
| S-EPMC4803501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo quantify the impact of respiratory motion on the treatment of lung tumors with spot scanning proton therapy.Methods and materialsFour-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess the interplay effect, which results from relative motion of the tumor and the proton beam, on the dose distribution in the patient. Ten patients with varying tumor sizes (2.6-82.3 cc) and motion amplitudes (3-30 mm) were included in the study. We investigated the impact of the spot size, which varies between proton facilities, and studied single fractions and conventionally fractionated treatments. The following metrics were used in the analysis: minimum/maximum/mean dose, target dose homogeneity, and 2-year local control rate (2y-LC).ResultsRespiratory motion reduces the target dose homogeneity, with the largest effects observed for the highest motion amplitudes. Smaller spot sizes (σ ≈ 3 mm) are inherently more sensitive to motion, decreasing target dose homogeneity on average by a factor 2.8 compared with a larger spot size (σ ≈ 13 mm). Using a smaller spot size to treat a tumor with 30-mm motion amplitude reduces the minimum dose to 44.7% of the prescribed dose, decreasing modeled 2y-LC from 87.0% to 2.7%, assuming a single fraction. Conventional fractionation partly mitigates this reduction, yielding a 2y-LC of 71.6%. For the large spot size, conventional fractionation increases target dose homogeneity and prevents a deterioration of 2y-LC for all patients. No correlation with tumor volume is observed. The effect on the normal lung dose distribution is minimal: observed changes in mean lung dose and lung V20 are <0.6 Gy(RBE) and <1.7%, respectively.ConclusionsFor the patients in this study, 2y-LC could be preserved in the presence of interplay using a large spot size and conventional fractionation. For treatments using smaller spot sizes and/or in the delivery of single fractions, interplay effects can lead to significant deterioration of the dose distribution and lower 2y-LC.
| S-EPMC3646997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Proton minibeam radiation therapy (pMBRT) is a novel therapeutic strategy that has proven to significantly increase dose tolerances and sparing of normal tissue. It uses very narrow proton beams (diameter ≤1 mm), roughly one order of magnitude smaller than state-of-the-art pencil beams. The current implementation of pMBRT with mechanical collimators is suboptimal as it is inflexible, decreases efficiency and produces additional secondary neutrons. As a potential solution, we explore in this article minibeam generation through magnetic focussing and investigate possibilities for the integration of such a technique at existing clinical centres. For this, a model of the pencil beam scanning (PBS) nozzle and beam at the Orsay Proton Therapy Centre was established and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine its focussing capabilities. Moreover, various modifications of the nozzle geometry were considered. It was found that the PBS nozzle in its current state is not suitable for magnetic minibeam generation. Instead, a new, optimised nozzle design has been proposed and conditions necessary for minibeam generation were benchmarked. In addition, dose simulations in a water phantom were performed which showed improved dose distributions compared to those obtained with mechanical collimators.
| S-EPMC6987213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study investigated the feasibility and potential clinical benefit of utilizing a new proton treatment technique: Spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) to further reduce radiation dose to healthy tissue and mitigate the probability of normal tissue complications compared to conventional intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT).MethodsEight patients diagnosed with left-sided breast cancer and treated with breast-preserving surgery followed by whole breast irradiation without regional nodal irradiation were included in this retrospective planning. Two proton treatment plans were generated for each patient: vertical intensity-modulated proton therapy used for clinical treatment (vIMPT, gantry angle 10°-30°) and SPArc for comparison purpose. Both SPArc and vIMPT plans were optimized using the robust optimization of?±?3.5% range and 5 mm setup uncertainties. Root-mean-square deviation dose (RMSD) volume histograms were used for plan robustness evaluation. All dosimetric results were evaluated based on dose-volume histograms (DVH), and the interplay effect was evaluated based on the accumulation of single-fraction 4D dynamic dose on CT50. The treatment beam delivery time was simulated based on a gantry rotation with energy-layer-switching-time (ELST) from 0.2 to 5 s.ResultsThe average D1 to the heart and LAD were reduced to 53.63 cGy and 82.25 cGy compared with vIMPT 110.38 cGy (p?=?0.001) and 170.38 cGy (p?=?0.001), respectively. The average V5Gy and V20Gy of ipsilateral lung was reduced to 16.77% and 3.07% compared to vIMPT 25.56% (p?=?0.001) and 4.68% (p?=?0.003). Skin3mm mean and maximum dose were reduced to 3999.38 cGy and 4395.63 cGy compared to vIMPT 4104.25 cGy (p?=?0.039) and 4411.63 cGy (p?=?0.043), respectively. A significant relative risk reduction (RNTCP?=?NTCPSPArc/NTCPvIMPT) for organs at risk (OARs) was obtained with SPArc ranging from 0.61 to 0.86 depending on the clinical endpoint. The RMSD volume histogram (RVH) analysis shows SPArc provided better plan robustness in OARs sparing, including the heart, LAD, ipsilateral lung, and skin. The average estimated treatment beam delivery times were comparable to vIMPT plans when the ELST is about 0.5 s.ConclusionSPArc technique can further reduce dose delivered to OARs and the probability of normal tissue complications in patients treated for left-sided WBRT.
| S-EPMC7542109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Proton minibeams (MBs) comprised of parallel planar beamlets were evaluated for their ability to spare healthy brain compared to proton broad beams (BBs). Juvenile mice were given partial brain irradiation of 10 or 30 Gy integral dose using 100 MeV protons configured either as BBs or arrays of 0.3-mm planar MBs spaced 1.0 mm apart on center. Neurologic toxicity was evaluated during an 8-month surveillance: no overt constitutional or neurologic dysfunction was noted for any study animals. Less acute epilation was observed in MB than BB mice. Persistent chronic inflammation was noted along the entire BB path in BB mice whereas inflammation was confined to just within the MB peak regions in MB mice. The potential neurologic sparing, possibly via reduced volume of chronic inflammation, offers a compelling rationale for clinical advancement of this proton technique.
| S-EPMC7347840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To report quality of life (QOL)/toxicity in men treated with proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer and to compare outcomes between passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) and spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT).Men with localized prostate cancer enrolled on a prospective QOL protocol with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were reviewed. Comparative groups were defined by technique (PSPT vs SSPT). Patients completed Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires at baseline and every 3-6 months after proton beam therapy. Clinically meaningful differences in QOL were defined as ?0.5 × baseline standard deviation. The cumulative incidence of modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade ?2 gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity and argon plasma coagulation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method.A total of 226 men received PSPT, and 65 received SSPT. Both PSPT and SSPT resulted in statistically significant changes in sexual, urinary, and bowel Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite summary scores. Only bowel summary, function, and bother resulted in clinically meaningful decrements beyond treatment completion. The decrement in bowel QOL persisted through 24-month follow-up. Cumulative grade ?2 GU and GI toxicity at 24 months were 13.4% and 9.6%, respectively. There was 1 grade 3 GI toxicity (PSPT group) and no other grade ?3 GI or GU toxicity. Argon plasma coagulation application was infrequent (PSPT 4.4% vs SSPT 1.5%; P=.21). No statistically significant differences were appreciated between PSPT and SSPT regarding toxicity or QOL.Both PSPT and SSPT confer low rates of grade ?2 GI or GU toxicity, with preservation of meaningful sexual and urinary QOL at 24 months. A modest, yet clinically meaningful, decrement in bowel QOL was seen throughout follow-up. No toxicity or QOL differences between PSPT and SSPT were identified. Long-term comparative results in a larger patient cohort are warranted.
| S-EPMC4086944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePlanning studies to compare x-ray and proton techniques and to select the most suitable technique for each patient have been hampered by the nonequivalence of several aspects of treatment planning and delivery. A fair comparison should compare similarly advanced delivery techniques from current clinical practice and also assess the robustness of each technique. The present study therefore compared volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and single-field optimization (SFO) spot scanning proton therapy plans created using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose escalation in midesophageal cancer and analyzed the effect of setup and range uncertainties on these plans.Methods and materialsFor 21 patients, SIB plans with a physical dose prescription of 2 Gy or 2.5 Gy/fraction in 25 fractions to planning target volume (PTV)50Gy or PTV62.5Gy (primary tumor with 0.5 cm margins) were created and evaluated for robustness to random setup errors and proton range errors. Dose-volume metrics were compared for the optimal and uncertainty plans, with P<.05 (Wilcoxon) considered significant.ResultsSFO reduced the mean lung dose by 51.4% (range 35.1%-76.1%) and the mean heart dose by 40.9% (range 15.0%-57.4%) compared with VMAT. Proton plan robustness to a 3.5% range error was acceptable. For all patients, the clinical target volume D98 was 95.0% to 100.4% of the prescribed dose and gross tumor volume (GTV) D98 was 98.8% to 101%. Setup error robustness was patient anatomy dependent, and the potential minimum dose per fraction was always lower with SFO than with VMAT. The clinical target volume D98 was lower by 0.6% to 7.8% of the prescribed dose, and the GTV D98 was lower by 0.3% to 2.2% of the prescribed GTV dose.ConclusionsThe SFO plans achieved significant sparing of normal tissue compared with the VMAT plans for midesophageal cancer. The target dose coverage in the SIB proton plans was less robust to random setup errors and might be unacceptable for certain patients. Robust optimization to ensure adequate target coverage of SIB proton plans might be beneficial.
| S-EPMC4838670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this work was to assess the monitor unit (MU) values and position accuracy of spot scanning proton beams as recorded by the daily treatment logs of the treatment control system, and furthermore establish the feasibility of using the delivered spot positions and MU values to calculate and evaluate delivered doses to patients.To validate the accuracy of the recorded spot positions, the authors generated and executed a test treatment plan containing nine spot positions, to which the authors delivered ten MU each. The spot positions were measured with radiographic films and Matrixx 2D ion-chambers array placed at the isocenter plane and compared for displacements from the planned and recorded positions. Treatment logs for 14 patients were then used to determine the spot MU values and position accuracy of the scanning proton beam delivery system. Univariate analysis was used to detect any systematic error or large variation between patients, treatment dates, proton energies, gantry angles, and planned spot positions. The recorded patient spot positions and MU values were then used to replace the spot positions and MU values in the plan, and the treatment planning system was used to calculate the delivered doses to patients. The results were compared with the treatment plan.Within a treatment session, spot positions were reproducible within ±0.2 mm. The spot positions measured by film agreed with the planned positions within ±1 mm and with the recorded positions within ±0.5 mm. The maximum day-to-day variation for any given spot position was within ±1 mm. For all 14 patients, with ∼1 500 000 spots recorded, the total MU accuracy was within 0.1% of the planned MU values, the mean (x, y) spot displacement from the planned value was (-0.03 mm, -0.01 mm), the maximum (x, y) displacement was (1.68 mm, 2.27 mm), and the (x, y) standard deviation was (0.26 mm, 0.42 mm). The maximum dose difference between calculated dose to the patient based on the plan and recorded data was within 2%.The authors have shown that the treatment log file in a spot scanning proton beam delivery system is precise enough to serve as a quality assurance tool to monitor variation in spot position and MU value, as well as the delivered dose uncertainty from the treatment delivery system. The analysis tool developed here could be useful for assessing spot position uncertainty and thus dose uncertainty for any patient receiving spot scanning proton beam therapy.
| S-EPMC3555925 | biostudies-other