Analysis of treatment process time for real-time-image gated-spot-scanning proton-beam therapy (RGPT) system.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Child, Preschool
Female
Fiducial Markers
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Linear Models
Liver Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Lung Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Proton Therapy
/ methods
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Image-Guided
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Synchrotrons
Time Factors
Young Adult
beam-delivery efficiency
interplay effect
organ motion
spot-scanning proton-beam therapy
treatment time
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
12
03
2019
revised:
27
10
2019
accepted:
03
12
2019
pubmed:
31
12
2019
medline:
21
1
2021
entrez:
31
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We developed a synchrotron-based real-time-image gated-spot-scanning proton-beam therapy (RGPT) system and utilized it to clinically operate on moving tumors in the liver, pancreas, lung, and prostate. When the spot-scanning technique is linked to gating, the beam delivery time with gating can increase, compared to that without gating. We aim to clarify whether the total treatment process can be performed within approximately 30 min (the general time per session in several proton therapy facilities), even for gated-spot-scanning proton-beam delivery with implanted fiducial markers. Data from 152 patients, corresponding to 201 treatment plans and 3577 sessions executed from October 2016 to June 2018, were included in this study. To estimate the treatment process time, we utilized data from proton beam delivery logs during the treatment for each patient. We retrieved data, such as the disease site, total target volume, field size at the isocenter, and the number of layers and spots for each field, from the treatment plans. We quantitatively analyzed the treatment process, which includes the patient load (or setup), bone matching, marker matching, beam delivery, patient unload, and equipment setup, using the data obtained from the log data. Among all the cases, 90 patients used the RGPT system (liver: n = 34; pancreas: n = 5; lung: n = 4; and prostate: n = 47). The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the total treatment process time for the RGPT system was 30.3 ± 7.4 min, while it was 25.9 ± 7.5 min for those without gating treatment, excluding craniospinal irradiation (CSI; head and neck: n = 16, pediatric: n = 31, others: n = 15); for CSI (n = 11) with two or three isocenters, the process time was 59.9 ± 13.9 min. Our results demonstrate that spot-scanning proton therapy with a gating function can be achieved in approximately 30-min time slots.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31886616
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12804
pmc: PMC7020995
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
38-49Subventions
Organisme : Hokkaido University Hospital
Organisme : Johns Hopkins University
Organisme : JSPS KAKENHI
ID : JP18K15577
Organisme : JSPS KAKENHI
ID : JP18H02758
Organisme : AMED
ID : JP18he1602004
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jun 1;71(2):491-7
pubmed: 18207663
Phys Med. 2016 Sep;32(9):1095-102
pubmed: 27567089
Med Phys. 2013 Jul;40(7):071729
pubmed: 23822433
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Jan;44(1):185-205
pubmed: 10071883
Med Phys. 2014 Jun;41(6):061713
pubmed: 24877808
Lancet. 1999 Apr 17;353(9161):1331-2
pubmed: 10218540
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):e329-36
pubmed: 21703781
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Apr;123(1):112-118
pubmed: 28283192
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Jan 1;103(1):268-275
pubmed: 30145394
Med Phys. 2011 Jul;38(7):4329-37
pubmed: 21859034
Phys Med Biol. 1992 Jan;37(1):223-34
pubmed: 1311106
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Apr 7;53(7):1947-59
pubmed: 18364549
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jul 15;53(4):822-34
pubmed: 12095547
Med Phys. 2009 Sep;36(9):4068-83
pubmed: 19810479
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):240-7
pubmed: 12694845
Phys Med. 2016 Feb;32(2):305-11
pubmed: 26944253
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Feb;114(2):245-8
pubmed: 25620062
Phys Med. 2016 Jul;32(7):932-7
pubmed: 27296793
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jan 1;97(1):173-181
pubmed: 27856039
J Radiat Res. 2018 Mar 1;59(suppl_1):i63-i71
pubmed: 29309691
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Sep 7;55(17):5103-21
pubmed: 20702927
Med Phys. 2016 Jul;43(7):3975
pubmed: 27370116
Phys Med. 2014 Jul;30(5):555-8
pubmed: 24786663
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jan 1;94(1):172-180
pubmed: 26700711
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 18;9(4):e94971
pubmed: 24747601
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Feb 21;61(4):1515-31
pubmed: 26815927