Display options
Cite
Boria AJ, Uh J, Pirlepesov F, et al. Interplay Effect of Target Motion and Pencil-Beam Scanning in Proton Therapy for Pediatric Patients. Int J Part Ther. 2018;5(2):1-10doi: 10.14338/IJPT-17-00030.1.
Boria, A. J., Uh, J., Pirlepesov, F., Stuckey, J. C., Axente, M., Gargone, M. A., & Hua, C. H. (2018). Interplay Effect of Target Motion and Pencil-Beam Scanning in Proton Therapy for Pediatric Patients. International journal of particle therapy, 5(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-17-00030.1
Boria, Andrew J, et al. "Interplay Effect of Target Motion and Pencil-Beam Scanning in Proton Therapy for Pediatric Patients." International journal of particle therapy vol. 5,2 (2018): 1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-17-00030.1
Boria AJ, Uh J, Pirlepesov F, Stuckey JC, Axente M, Gargone MA, Hua CH. Interplay Effect of Target Motion and Pencil-Beam Scanning in Proton Therapy for Pediatric Patients. Int J Part Ther. 2018;5(2):1-10. doi: 10.14338/IJPT-17-00030.1. Epub 2018 Nov 30. PMID: 30800718; PMCID: PMC6383772.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Int J Part Ther. 2018;5(2):1-10. doi: 10.14338/IJPT-17-00030.1. Epub 2018 Nov 30.

Interplay Effect of Target Motion and Pencil-Beam Scanning in Proton Therapy for Pediatric Patients.

International journal of particle therapy

Andrew J Boria, Jinsoo Uh, Fakhriddin Pirlepesov, James C Stuckey, Marian Axente, Melissa A Gargone, Chia-Ho Hua

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
  2. School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
  3. Department of Physics, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN, USA.

PMID: 30800718 PMCID: PMC6383772 DOI: 10.14338/IJPT-17-00030.1

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of interplay between spot-scanning proton beams and respiration-induced tumor motion on internal target volume coverage for pediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Photon treatments for 10 children with representative tumor motions (1-13 mm superior-inferior) were replanned to simulate single-field uniform dose- optimized proton therapy. Static plans were designed by using average computed tomography (CT) data sets created from 4D CT data to obtain nominal dose distributions. The motion interplay effect was simulated by assigning each spot in the static plan delivery sequence to 1 of 10 respiratory-phase CTs, using the actual patient breathing trace and specifications of a synchrotron-based proton system. Dose distributions for individual phases were deformed onto the space of the average CT and summed to produce the accumulated dose distribution, whose dose-volume histogram was compared with the one from the static plan.

RESULTS: Tumor motion had minimal impact on the internal target volume hot spot (D2), which deviated by <3% from the nominal values of the static plans. The cold spot (D98) was also minimally affected, except in 2 patients with diaphragmatic tumor motion exceeding 10 mm. The impact on tumor coverage was more pronounced with respect to the V99 rather than the V95. Decreases of 10% to 49% in the V99 occurred in multiple patients for whom the beam paths traversed the lung-diaphragm interface and were, therefore, more sensitive to respiration-induced changes in the water equivalent path length. Fractionation alone apparently did not mitigate the interplay effect beyond 6 fractions.

CONCLUSION: The interplay effect is not a concern when delivering scanning proton beams to younger pediatric patients with tumors located in the retroperitoneal space and tumor motion of <5 mm. Children and adolescents with diaphragmatic tumor motion exceeding 10 mm require special attention, because significant declines in target coverage and dose homogeneity were seen in simulated treatments of such patients.

Keywords: interplay effect; particle therapy; pediatric patients; proton therapy; tumor motion

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Med Phys. 2009 Mar;36(3):893-903 - PubMed
  2. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010 Jan;29(1):196-205 - PubMed
  3. Phys Med Biol. 2016 Nov 7;61(21):7812-7832 - PubMed
  4. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Sep 1;99(1):227-237 - PubMed
  5. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):216-23 - PubMed
  6. Phys Med Biol. 2015 Oct 21;60(20):8141-59 - PubMed
  7. Phys Med Biol. 2015 Apr 7;60(7):3013-29 - PubMed
  8. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Sep 1;99(1):41-50 - PubMed
  9. Cancer Sci. 2017 Mar;108(3):444-447 - PubMed
  10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Apr 1;64(5):1589-95 - PubMed
  11. Med Phys. 2016 Mar;43(3):1111-8 - PubMed
  12. Phys Med Biol. 2013 Jun 21;58(12):4137-56 - PubMed
  13. Med Phys. 2013 Jun;40(6):061702 - PubMed
  14. Med Phys. 2014 Feb;41(2):021721 - PubMed
  15. Health Phys. 2012 Nov;103(5):586-9 - PubMed
  16. Cancers (Basel). 2015 Jun 29;7(3):1143-53 - PubMed
  17. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):1771-6 - PubMed
  18. Med Image Anal. 2011 Apr;15(2):238-49 - PubMed
  19. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Nov 15;90(4):809-18 - PubMed
  20. Radiother Oncol. 2017 May;123(2):263-269 - PubMed
  21. Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jun 7;57(11):R99-117 - PubMed
  22. Phys Med Biol. 2005 Mar 7;50(5):983-90 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support