The physics of proton therapy has advanced considerably since it was proposed in 1946. Today analytical equations and numerical simulation methods are available to predict and characterize many aspects of proton therapy. This article reviews the basic aspects of the physics of proton therapy, including proton interaction mechanisms, proton transport calculations, the determination of dose from therapeutic and stray radiations, and shielding design. The article discusses underlying processes as well as selected practical experimental and theoretical methods. We conclude by briefly speculating on possible future areas of research of relevance to the physics of proton therapy.

Recent advances in radiotherapy have enabled the use of different types of particles, such as protons and heavy ions, as well as refinements to the treatment of tumours with standard sources (photons). However, the risk of second cancers arising in long-term survivors continues to be a problem. The long-term risks from treatments such as particle therapy have not yet been determined and are unlikely to become apparent for many years. Therefore, there is a need to develop risk assessments based on our current knowledge of radiation-induced carcinogenesis.

The purpose of this work was to compare the risk of developing a second cancer after craniospinal irradiation using photon versus proton radiotherapy by means of simulation studies designed to account for the effects of neutron exposures. Craniospinal irradiation of a male phantom was calculated for passively-scattered and scanned-beam proton treatment units. Organ doses were estimated from treatment plans; for the proton treatments, the amount of stray radiation was calculated separately using the Monte Carlo method. The organ doses were converted to risk of cancer incidence using a standard formalism developed for radiation protection purposes. The total lifetime risk of second cancer due exclusively to stray radiation was 1.5% for the passively scattered treatment versus 0.8% for the scanned proton beam treatment. Taking into account the therapeutic and stray radiation fields, the risk of second cancer from intensity-modulated radiation therapy and conventional radiotherapy photon treatments were 7 and 12 times higher than the risk associated with scanned-beam proton therapy, respectively, and 6 and 11 times higher than with passively scattered proton therapy, respectively. Simulations revealed that both passively scattered and scanned-beam proton therapies confer significantly lower risks of second cancers than 6MV conventional and intensity-modulated photon therapies.

Purpose To assess the risk of a secondary malignant neoplasm (SMN) from proton therapy relative to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using X-rays, taking into account contributions from both primary and secondary sources of radiation, for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials A proton therapy plan and a 6-MV IMRT plan were constructed for 3 patients with early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Doses from the primary fields delivered to organs at risk of developing an SMN were determined from treatment plans. Secondary doses from the proton therapy and IMRT were determined from Monte Carlo simulations and available measured data, respectively. The risk of an SMN was estimated from primary and secondary doses on an organ-by-organ basis by use of risk models from the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Results Proton therapy reduced the risk of an SMN by 26% to 39% compared with IMRT. The risk of an SMN for both modalities was greatest in the in-field organs. However, the risks from the in-field organs were considerably lower with the proton therapy plan than with the IMRT plan. This reduction was attributed to the substantial sparing of the rectum and bladder from exposure to the therapeutic beam by the proton therapy plan. Conclusions When considering exposure to primary and secondary radiation, proton therapy can reduce the risk of an SMN in prostate patients compared with contemporary IMRT.

No abstract

Stray radiation exposures are of concern for patients receiving proton radiotherapy and vary strongly with several treatment factors. The purposes of this study were to conservatively estimate neutron exposures for a contemporary passive scattering proton therapy system and to understand how they vary with treatment factors. We studied the neutron dose equivalent per therapeutic absorbed dose (H/D) as a function of treatment factors including proton energy, location in the treatment room, treatment field size, spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) width and snout position using both Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modeling. The H/D value at the isocenter for a 250 MeV medium field size option was estimated to be 20 mSv Gy(-1). H/D values generally increased with the energy or penetration range, fell off sharply with distance from the treatment unit, decreased modestly with the aperture size, increased with the SOBP width and decreased with the snout distance from the isocenter. The H/D values from Monte Carlo simulations agreed well with experimental results from the literature. The analytical model predicted H/D values within 28% of those obtained in simulations; this value is within typical neutron measurement uncertainties.

Contemporary treatment planning systems for proton radiotherapy typically use analytical pencil-beam algorithms - which require a comprehensive set of configuration data - to predict the absorbed dose distributions in the patient. In order to reduce the time required to prepare a new proton treatment planning system for clinical use, it was desirable to configure the planning system before measured beam data were available. However, it was not known if the Monte Carlo simulation method was a practical alternative to measuring beam profiles. The purpose of this study was to develop a model of a passively scattered proton therapy unit, to simulate the properties of the proton fields using the Monte Carlo technique and to configure an analytical treatment planning system using the simulated beam data. Additional simulations and treatment plans were calculated in order to validate the pencil-beam predictions against the Monte Carlo simulations using realistic treatment beams. Comparison of dose distributions in a water phantom revealed small dose difference and distances to agreement under the validation conditions. The total simulation time for generating the 768 beam configuration profiles was approximately 6 weeks using 30 nodes in a parallel processing cluster. The results of this study show that it is possible to configure and test a proton treatment planning system prior to the availability of measured proton beam data. The model presented here provided a means to reduce by several months the time required to prepare an analytical treatment planning system for patient treatments.

Proton beam radiotherapy unavoidably exposes healthy tissue to stray radiation emanating from the treatment unit and secondary radiation produced within the patient. These exposures provide no known benefit and may increase a patient's risk of developing a radiogenic cancer. The aims of this study were to calculate doses to major organs and tissues and to estimate second cancer risk from stray radiation following craniospinal irradiation (CSI) with proton therapy. This was accomplished using detailed Monte Carlo simulations of a passive-scattering proton treatment unit and a voxelized phantom to represent the patient. Equivalent doses, effective dose and corresponding risk for developing a fatal second cancer were calculated for a 10-year-old boy who received proton therapy. The proton treatment comprised CSI at 30.6 Gy plus a boost of 23.4 Gy to the clinical target volume. The predicted effective dose from stray radiation was 418 mSv, of which 344 mSv was from neutrons originating outside the patient; the remaining 74 mSv was caused by neutrons originating within the patient. This effective dose corresponds to an attributable lifetime risk of a fatal second cancer of 3.4%. The equivalent doses that predominated the effective dose from stray radiation were in the lungs, stomach and colon. These results establish a baseline estimate of the stray radiation dose and corresponding risk for a pediatric patient undergoing proton CSI and support the suitability of passively-scattered proton beams for the treatment of central nervous system tumors in pediatric patients.