Comparison of optimized single and multifield irradiation plans of antiproton, proton and carbon ion beams

Bassler, Niels; Kantemiris, Ioannis; Karaiskos, P.; Engelke, Julia; Holzscheiter, M. H.; Petersen, J.

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2010.02.026

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies indicate that dose verification to ~1 mm accuracy would be possible within a therapeutic dose range1819. However, concerns about this long range secondary radiation have been raised as it would inevitably decrease the resolution of the dose deposition profiles which is one of the main advantages of ion beam therapy202122. It is however, recognized that the resolution of the dose profiles will have to be assessed for the biological effective dose, including RBE profiles, requiring detailed investigations of the biological consequences of antiproton exposures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Antiproton induced DNA damage: proton like in flight, carbon-ion like near rest

Kavanagh

Currell

Timson

et al. 2013

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological validation of new radiotherapy modalities is essential to understand their therapeutic potential. Antiprotons have been proposed for cancer therapy due to enhanced dose deposition provided by antiproton-nucleon annihilation. We assessed cellular DNA damage and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of a clinically relevant antiproton beam. Despite a modest LET (~19 keV/μm), antiproton spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) irradiation caused significant residual γ-H2AX foci compared to X-ray, proton and antiproton plateau irradiation. RBE of ~1.48 in the SOBP and ~1 in the plateau were measured and used for a qualitative effective dose curve comparison with proton and carbon-ions. Foci in the antiproton SOBP were larger and more structured compared to X-rays, protons and carbon-ions. This is likely due to overlapping particle tracks near the annihilation vertex, creating spatially correlated DNA lesions. No biological effects were observed at 28–42 mm away from the primary beam suggesting minimal risk from long-range secondary particles.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Antiproton induced DNA damage: proton like in flight, carbon-ion like near rest

Kavanagh

Currell

Timson

et al. 2013

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The capability of FLUKA for proton therapy calculations has been validated in a number of studies. ( 29 – 32 ) The model of the beam used in simulation of the range shift experiments with pure materials was verified by independent measurements on depth‐dose distribution in a water equivalent phantom.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

A semi‐empirical model for the therapeutic range shift estimation caused by inhomogeneities in proton beam therapy

Moskvin

Cheng

Fanelli

et al. 2012

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to devise a simple semi‐empirical model to estimate the range shift in clinical practices with high‐Z inhomogeneity in proton beam. A semi‐empirical model utilizing the logarithmic dependence on Z in stopping power from Bohr's classical approach has been developed to calculate the range shift due to the presence of inhomogeneity. Range shift from metallic plates of atomic number Z of various thicknesses were measured in water using a parallel plate ionization chamber and calculated with the FLUKA Monte Carlo code. The proton range shifts for bone and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) were estimated using the semi‐empirical model and compared with Monte Carlo calculation. The semi‐empirical equation to determine range shift and water equivalent thickness is presented. The model predicts a shift of the therapeutic range to within 2.5% accuracy for initial proton energies of 50 to 250 MeV and atomic numbers from 3.3 (effective Z for water) to 82. This equation is independent of beam energy, and thus provides range shift from high‐Z materials without the knowledge of proton energy. The proposed method of calculating the therapeutic range shift accurately requires only knowledge of the effective or actual atomic number of the inhomogeneity and the thickness of the inhomogeneity along the beam direction. The model generalizes the range shift calculation for any material based on its effective atomic number, and permits reliable prediction of the range shift for material combinations where no data is currently available. The proposed model can be readily implemented in routine clinical practice for proton range shift estimation and quality assurance on the treatment planning.PACS numbers: 87.53.‐j, 87.55.‐x, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.K‐

show abstract

“…In SHIELD-HIT10A, the ripple filter or similar structures periodic in one dimension can be simulated by providing an extra file containing the periodic structure and the position. The ripple filter is implemented in a similar way as described by Bassler et al (2010): In the geometry, the ripple filter is simply modeled as a solid block of material. However, when the particles hit this block, they are displaced along the z axis corresponding to the varying thickness of the ripple structure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%