IntroductionPost-operative radiotherapy (PORT) for stage IIIA completely-resected non-small cell lung cancer (CR-NSCLC) has been shown to improve local control; however, it is unclear that this translates into a survival benefit. One explanation is that the detrimental effect of PORT on critical organs at risk (OARs) negates its benefit. This study reports an in-silico comparative analysis of passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT)- and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with intensity modulated photon beam radiotherapy (IMRT) PORT.MethodsThe computed tomography treatment planning scans of ten patients with pathologic stage IIIA CR-NSCLC treated with IMRT were used. IMRT, PSPT, and IMPT plans were generated and analyzed for dosimetric endpoints. The proton plans were constructed with two or three beams. All plans were optimized to deliver 50.4 Gy(RBE) in 1.8 Gy(RBE) fractions to the target volume.ResultsIMPT leads to statistically significant reductions in maximum spinal cord, mean lung dose, lung volumes treated to 5, 10, 20, and 30 Gy (V5, V10, V20, V30), mean heart dose, and heart volume treated to 40 Gy (V40), when compared with IMRT or PSPT. PSPT reduced lung V5 but increased lung V20, V30, and heart and esophagus V40.ConclusionsIMPT demonstrates a large decrease in dose to all OARs. PSPT, while reducing the low-dose lung bath, increases the volume of lung receiving high dose. Reductions are seen in dosimetric parameters predictive of radiation pneumonitis and cardiac morbidity and mortality. This reduction may correlate with a decrease in dose-limiting toxicity and improve the therapeutic ratio.

Our proton-beam technique for craniospinal irradiation of pediatric medulloblastoma has successfully reduced normal-tissue doses and acute treatment-related sequelae. This technique may be especially advantageous in children with a history of myelosuppression, who might not other wise tolerate irradiation.

The results of these experiments suggest that the patient-specific collimator is a significant contributor to the secondary neutron dose equivalent to a distant organ at risk. Improving conformity of the radiation field to the patient-specific collimator can significantly reduce secondary neutron dose equivalent to the patient. Therefore, it is important to increase the number of available generic field sizes in double scattering systems as well as in uniform scanning nozzles.

Delivery of therapeutic proton beams requires an absolute energy accuracy of +/-0.64 to 0.27 MeV for patch fields and a relative energy accuracy of +/-0.10 to 0.25 MeV for tailoring the depth dose distribution using the energy stacking technique. Achromatic switchyard tunes, which lead to better stability of the beam incident onto the patient, unfortunately limit the ability of switchyard magnet tesla meters to verify the correct beam energy within the tolerances listed above. A new monitor to measure the proton energy before each pulse is transported through the switchyard has been installed into a proton synchrotron. The purpose of this monitor is to correct and/or inhibit beam delivery when the measured beam energy is outside of the tolerances for treatment. The monitor calculates the beam energy using data from two frequency and eight beam position monitors that measure the revolution frequency of the proton bunches and the effective offset of the orbit from the nominal radius of the synchrotron. The new energy monitor has been calibrated by measuring the range of the beam through water and comparing with published range-energy tables for various energies. A relationship between depth dose curves and range-energy tables was first determined using Monte Carlo simulations of particle transport and energy deposition. To reduce the uncertainties associated with typical scanning water phantoms, a new technique was devised in which the beam energy was scanned while fixed thickness water tanks were sandwiched between two fixed parallel plate ionization chambers. Using a multitude of tank sizes, several energies were tested to determine the nominal accelerator orbit radius. After calibration, the energy reported by the control system matched the energy derived by range measurements to better than 0.72 MeV for all nine energies tested between 40 and 255 MeV with an average difference of -0.33 MeV. A study of different combinations of revolution frequency and radial offsets to test the envelope of algorithm accuracy demonstrated a relative accuracy of +/-0.11 MeV for small energy changes between 126 and 250 MeV. These new measurements may serve as a data set for benchmarking range-energy relationships.

No abstract