Premium
SU‐F‐T‐189: Dosimetric Comparison of Spot‐Scanning Proton Therapy Techniques for Liver Tumors Close to the Skin Surface
Author(s) -
Takao S,
Matsuura T,
Matsuzaki Y,
Fujii Y,
Fujii T,
Katoh N,
Shimizu S,
Umegaki K,
Shirato H
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956326
Subject(s) - proton therapy , pencil beam scanning , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , bolus (digestion) , radiation treatment planning , medicine , particle therapy , fiducial marker , radiation therapy , biomedical engineering , radiology , surgery
Purpose: Spot‐scanning technique has been utilized to achieve conformal dose distribution to large and complicated tumors. This technique generally does not require patient‐specific devices such as aperture and compensator. The commercially available spot‐scanning proton therapy (SSPT) systems, however, cannot deliver proton beams to the region shallower than 4 g/cm2. Therefore some range compensation device is required to treat superficial tumors with SSPT. This study shows dosimetric comparison of the following treatment techniques: (i) with a tabletop bolus, (ii) with a nozzle‐mounted applicator, and (iii) without any devices and using intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) technique. Methods: The applicator composed of a combination of a mini‐ridge filter and a range shifter has been manufactured by Hitachi, Ltd., and the tabletop bolus was made by .decimal, Inc. Both devices have been clinically implemented in our facility. Three patients with liver tumors close to the skin surface were examined in this study. Each treatment plan was optimized so that the prescription dose of 76 Gy(RBE) or 66 Gy(RBE) would be delivered to 99% of the clinical target volume in 20 fractions. Three beams were used for tabletop bolus plan and IMPT plan, whereas two beams were used in the applicator plan because the gantry angle available was limited due to potential collision to patient and couch. The normal liver, colon, and skin were considered as organs at risk (OARs). Results: The target heterogeneity index (HI = D 5 /D 95 ) was 1.03 on average in each planning technique. The mean dose to the normal liver was considerably less than 20 Gy(RBE) in all cases. The dose to the skin could be reduced by 20 Gy(RBE) on average in the IMPT plan compared to the applicator plan. Conclusion: It has been confirmed that all treatment techniques met the dosimetric criteria for the OARs and could be implemented clinically.