Dose distribution effects of spot‑scanning proton beam therapy equipped with a multi‑leaf collimator for pediatric brain tumors

Fukumitsu,Nobuyoshi; Yamashita,Tomohiro; Mima,Masayuki; Demizu,Yusuke; Suzuki,Takeshi; Soejima,Toshinori

doi:10.3892/ol.2021.12896

Dose distribution effects of spot‑scanning proton beam therapy equipped with a multi‑leaf collimator for pediatric brain tumors

Authors:
- Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu
- Tomohiro Yamashita
- Masayuki Mima
- Yusuke Demizu
- Takeshi Suzuki
- Toshinori Soejima
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiation Oncology, Kobe Proton Center, Kobe, Hyōgo 650‑0047, Japan, Division of Medical Physics, Kobe Proton Center, Kobe, Hyōgo 650‑0047, Japan, Department of Anesthesiology, Kobe Proton Center, Kobe, Hyōgo 650‑0047, Japan
Published online on: July 1, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2021.12896
Article Number: 635
Copyright: © Fukumitsu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study simulated the effect of spot‑scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) performed using a device equipped with a multi‑leaf collimator (MLC) to calculate the dose distribution. Simulation studies using 18 pediatric patients with brain tumors in the posterior fossa were performed. Treatment plans were created for the MLC at different stages: Fully open (initial plan), fully closed to allow an irradiated area extending to 15 mm from the clinical target volume (CTV) (15‑mm plan), or closing only the leaves where an organ at risk (OAR) overlapped with a border at 10 or 5 mm from the CTV (10‑ and 5‑mm plans, respectively). The mean dose values for the brainstem, cervical cord, brain and cochlea in all MLC closure plans decreased as the MLC was closed (P=9.9x10^‑10, P=1.3x10^‑17, P=2.1x10^‑16 and P=2.0x10^‑5, respectively). The maximum dose (D_max) values of the cervical cord and cochlea in all MLC closure plans were also decreased as the MLC was closed (P=3.0x10^‑4 and P=1.1x10^‑5, respectively). The dose to the CTV was almost unchanged. In 10 patients, the D_max of the brain in all MLC‑closure plans was higher than that of the initial plan, but the maximum increase was only 0.8 gray relative biological effectiveness [Gy(RBE)]. In conclusion, the existing MLC installed in the treatment device can be used to decrease the OAR dose significantly using spot‑scanning PBT without a large capital investment. The dose from the scattered particles was small.

View Figures

View References

1	Lawrence JH, Tobias CA, Born JL, Linfoot JA, Kling RP and Gottschalk A: Alpha and proton heavy particles and the bragg peak in therapy. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 75:111–116. 1964.PubMed/NCBI
2	Bortfeld T and Schlegel W: An analytical approximation of depth-dose distributions for therapeutic proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 41:1331–1339. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Foote RL, Stafford SL, Petersen IA, Pulido JS, Clarke MJ, Schild SE, Garces YI, Olivier KR, Miller RC, Haddock MG, et al: The clinical case for proton beam therapy. Radiat Oncol. 7:1742012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Holliday EB and Frank SJ: Proton radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: A review of the clinical experience to date. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 89:292–302. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Royce TJ and Efstathiou JA: Proton therapy for prostate cancer: A review of the rationale, evidence, and current state. Urol Oncol. 37:628–636. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Haas-Kogan D, Indelicato D, Paganetti H, Esiashvili N, Mahajan A, Yock T, Flampouri S, MacDonald S, Fouladi M, Stephen K, et al: National cancer institute workshop on proton therapy for children: Considerations regarding brainstem injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 101:152–168. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Klein J and Dawson LA: Hepatocellular carcinoma radiation therapy: Review of evidence and future opportunities. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 87:22–32. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Chuong MD, Hallemeier CL, Jabbour SK, Yu J, Badiyan S, Merrell KW, Mishra MV, Li H, Verma V and Lin SH: Improving outcomes for esophageal cancer using proton beam therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 95:488–497. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Lomax A: Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 44:185–205. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Hyer DE, Hill PM, Wang D, Smith BR and Flynn RT: A dynamic collimation system for penumbra reduction in spot-scanning proton therapy: Proof of concept. Med Phys. 41:0917012014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	DeLaney TF: Proton therapy in the clinic. Front Radiat Ther Oncol. 43:465–485. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Bert C and Durante M: Motion in radiotherapy: Particle therapy. Phys Med Biol. 56:R113–R144. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Schippers JM and Lomax AJ: Emerging technologies in proton therapy. Acta Oncol. 50:838–850. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Engelsman M, Schwarz M and Dong L: Physics controversies in proton therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 23:88–96. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	van de Water S, Kraan AC, Breedveld S, Schillemans W, Teguh DN, Kooy HM, Madden TM, Heijmen BJ and Hoogeman MS: Improved efficiency of multi-criteria IMPT treatment planning using iterative resampling of randomly placed pencil beams. Phys Med Biol. 58:6969–6983. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	van de Water S, Safai S, Schippers JM, Weber DC and Lomax AJ: Towards FLASH proton therapy: The impact of treatment planning and machine characteristics on achievable dose rates. Acta Oncol. 58:1463–1469. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Rosas S, Belosi FM, Bizzocchi N, Böhlen T, Zepter S, Morach P, Lomax AJ, Weber DC and Hrbacek J: Benchmarking a commercial proton therapy solution: The Paul Scherrer Institut experience. Br J Radiol. 93:201909202020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Meier G, Leiser D, Besson R, Mayor A, Safai S, Weber DC and Lomax AJ: Contour scanning for penumbra improvement in pencil beam scanned proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 62:2398–2416. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Bues M, Newhauser WD, Titt U and Smith AR: Therapeutic step and shoot proton beam spot-scanning with a multi-leaf collimator: A Monte Carlo study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 115:164–169. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Sugiyama S, Katsui K, Tominaga Y, Waki T, Katayama N, Matsuzaki H, Kariya S, Kuroda M, Nishizaki K and Kanazawa S: Dose distribution of intensity-modulated proton therapy with and without a multi-leaf collimator for the treatment of maxillary sinus cancer: A comparative effectiveness study. Radiat Oncol. 14:2092019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Dowdell SJ, Clasie B, Depauw N, Metcalfe P, Rosenfeld AB, Kooy HM, Flanz JB and Paganetti H: Monte Carlo study of the potential reduction in out-of-field dose using a patient-specific aperture in pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 57:2829–2842. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Wang D, Smith BR, Gelover E, Flynn RT and Hyer DE: A method to select aperture margin in collimated spot scanning proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 60:N109–N119. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Yasui K, Toshito T, Omachi C, Hayashi K, Tanaka K, Asai K, Shimomura A, Muramatsu R and Hayashi N: Evaluation of dosimetric advantages of using patient-specific aperture system with intensity-modulated proton therapy for the shallow depth tumor. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 19:132–137. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Smith B, Gelover E, Moignier A, Wang D, Flynn RT, Lin L, Kirk M, Solberg T and Hyer DE: Technical Note: A treatment plan comparison between dynamic collimation and a fixed aperture during spot scanning proton therapy for brain treatment. Med Phys. 43:46932016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Moignier A, Gelover E, Wang D, Smith B, Flynn R, Kirk M, Lin L, Solberg T, Lin A and Hyer D: Theoretical benefits of dynamic collimation in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for brain tumors: Dosimetric and radiobiological metrics. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 95:171–180. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Winterhalter C, Meier G, Oxley D, Weber DC, Lomax AJ and Safai S: Contour scanning, multi-leaf collimation and the combination thereof for proton pencil beam scanning. Phys Med Biol. 64:0150022018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Smith BR, Hyer DE, Hill PM and Culberson WS: Secondary neutron dose from a dynamic collimation system during intracranial pencil beam scanning proton therapy: A monte carlo investigation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 103:241–250. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Kimstrand P, Traneus E, Ahnesjo A and Tilly N: Parametrization and application of scatter kernels for modelling scanned proton beam collimator scatter dose. Phys Med Biol. 53:3405–3429. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Saini J, Traneus E, Maes D, Regmi R, Bowen SR, Bloch C and Wong T: Advanced Proton Beam Dosimetry Part I: Review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 7:171–179. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Maes D, Saini J, Zeng J, Rengan R, Wong T and Bowen SR: Advanced proton beam dosimetry part II: Monte Carlo vs. Pencil beam-based planning for lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 7:114–121. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Gill P, Murray W and Saunders M: Software for large-scale nonlinear programming. User's guide for SNOPT Version. 7:1–116. 2008.
32	Hyer DE, Hill PM, Wang D, Smith BR and Flynn RT: Effects of spot size and spot spacing on lateral penumbra reduction when using a dynamic collimation system for spot scanning proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 59:N187–N196. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Moteabbed M, Yock TI, Depauw N, Madden TM, Kooy HM and Paganetti H: Impact of spot size and beam-shaping devices on the treatment plan quality for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 95:190–198. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI