Quantitative analysis of treatments using real-time image gated spot-scanning with synchrotron-based proton beam therapy system log data.
beam delivery efficiency
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:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
07
02
2020
revised:
11
08
2020
accepted:
01
09
2020
pubmed:
6
11
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
5
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A synchrotron-based real-time image gated spot-scanning proton beam therapy (RGPT) system with inserted fiducial markers can irradiate a moving tumor with high accuracy. As gated treatments increase the beam delivery time, this study aimed to investigate the frequency of intra-field adjustments corresponding to the baseline shift or drift and the beam delivery efficiency of a synchrotron-based RGPT system. Data from 118 patients corresponding to 127 treatment plans and 2810 sessions between October 2016 and March 2019 were collected. We quantitatively analyzed the proton beam delivery time, the difference between the ideal beam delivery time based on a simulated synchrotron magnetic excitation pattern and the actual treatment beam delivery time, frequency corresponding to the baseline shift or drift, and the gating efficiency of the synchrotron-based RGPT system according to the proton beam delivery machine log data. The mean actual beam delivery time was 7.1 min, and the simulated beam delivery time in an ideal environment with the same treatment plan was 2.9 min. The average difference between the actual and simulated beam delivery time per session was 4.3 min. The average frequency of intra-field adjustments corresponding to baseline shift or drift and beam delivery efficiency were 21.7% and 61.8%, respectively. Based on our clinical experience with a synchrotron-based RGPT system, we determined the frequency corresponding to baseline shift or drift and the beam delivery efficiency using the beam delivery machine log data. To maintain treatment accuracy within ± 2.0 mm, intra-field adjustments corresponding to baseline shift or drift were required in approximately 20% of cases. Further improvements in beam delivery efficiency may be realized by shortening the beam delivery time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33151643
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13029
pmc: PMC7769392
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
10-19Subventions
Organisme : Japna Agency for Medical Research and Development
ID : JP18he1602004
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : JP18K15577
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : JP18H02758
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 21;54(10):3101-11
pubmed: 19420427
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Apr 7;57(7):1779-95
pubmed: 22407290
Med Phys. 2009 Sep;36(9):4068-83
pubmed: 19810479
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2018 Feb 23;3(3):412-420
pubmed: 30197942
Med Phys. 2013 Jul;40(7):071729
pubmed: 23822433
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Apr 1;49(5):1429-38
pubmed: 11286851
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Jan;86(1):69-76
pubmed: 18077028
Lancet. 1999 Apr 17;353(9161):1331-2
pubmed: 10218540
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 21;53(4):1027-42
pubmed: 18263956
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):e329-36
pubmed: 21703781
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jun 1;92(2):460-8
pubmed: 25823447
Phys Med. 2014 Jul;30(5):555-8
pubmed: 24786663
Med Phys. 2011 Jul;38(7):4329-37
pubmed: 21859034
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Apr 7;53(7):1947-59
pubmed: 18364549
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):253-61
pubmed: 17967513
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jul 15;53(4):822-34
pubmed: 12095547
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):258-266
pubmed: 26960747
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):181-189
pubmed: 26372435
Med Phys. 2017 Oct;44(10):5081-5088
pubmed: 28777447
Phys Med. 2016 Sep;32(9):1095-102
pubmed: 27567089
Med Phys. 2006 Sep;33(9):3116-23
pubmed: 17022203
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 15;81(4):e393-9
pubmed: 21658857
Phys Med. 2016 Feb;32(2):331-42
pubmed: 26883369
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Sep 7;58(17):6079-94
pubmed: 23939146
Med Phys. 2014 Jun;41(6):061713
pubmed: 24877808
Radiat Oncol J. 2015 Dec;33(4):337-43
pubmed: 26756034
Med Phys. 2000 Apr;27(4):716-24
pubmed: 10798694
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
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 18;9(4):e94971
pubmed: 24747601
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Nov 21;56(22):7257-71
pubmed: 22037710
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Feb 21;61(4):1515-31
pubmed: 26815927
Phys Med Biol. 1992 Jan;37(1):223-34
pubmed: 1311106
Med Phys. 1995 Jan;22(1):37-53
pubmed: 7715569
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 21;53(4):1043-56
pubmed: 18263957
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):1665-73
pubmed: 21498009
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Feb;21(2):38-49
pubmed: 31886616