Provision Center for Proton Therapy

BackgroundIt is well known in proton therapy that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is not constant across the entire Bragg peak, with higher RBE at the distal end of the Bragg peak due to higher linear energy transfer (LET). Treatment planning systems are moving toward LET optimization to mitigate this potentially higher biological impact at a track end. However, using a simple script, proton users can begin to simulate this process by deleting spots from critical structures during optimization. In most cases, nominal target coverage and plan robustness remain satisfactory.MethodsIn our clinic, we developed a script that allows the user to delete spots in all organs at risk (OARs) of interest for one or more treatment beams. The purpose of this script is to potentially reduce side effects by eliminating Bragg peaks within OARs. The script was first used for prostate patients where spots in the rectum and sigmoid, outside of the overlap with the target, were deleted. We then began to use the script for head and neck (H&N) and breast/chestwall patients to reduce acute side effects of the skin by removing spots in a 0.5‐cm skin rind.ConclusionsBy utilizing a simple script for deleting spots in critical structures, we have seen excellent clinical results thus far. We have noted reduced skin reactions for nearly all H&N and breast patients.

IntroductionA broad range of stakeholders have called for randomised evidence on the potential clinical benefits and harms of proton therapy, a type of radiation therapy, for patients with breast cancer. Radiation therapy is an important component of curative treatment, reducing cancer recurrence and extending survival. Compared with photon therapy, the international treatment standard, proton therapy reduces incidental radiation to the heart. Our overall objective is to evaluate whether the differences between proton and photon therapy cardiac radiation dose distributions lead to meaningful reductions in cardiac morbidity and mortality after treatment for breast cancer.MethodsWe are conducting a large scale, multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial for patients with breast cancer who will be followed longitudinally for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and cancer control outcomes. A total of 1278 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer will be randomly allocated to receive either photon or proton therapy. The primary outcomes are major cardiovascular events, defined as myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmia or pericardial disease. Secondary endpoints are urgent or unanticipated outpatient or emergency room visits for heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease or pericardial disease. The Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Clinical Events Centre will conduct centralised, blinded adjudication of primary outcome events.Ethics and disseminationThe RadComp trial has been approved by the institutional review boards of all participating sites. Recruitment began in February 2016. Current version of the protocol is A3, dated 08 November 2018. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, stakeholder engagement efforts and presentation to the public via lay media outlets.Trial registration numberNCT02603341

PurposeThe aim of this study is to validate the RayStation Monte Carlo (MC) dose algorithm using animal tissue neck phantoms and a water breast phantom.MethodsThree anthropomorphic phantoms were used in a clinical setting to test the RayStation MC dose algorithm. We used two real animal necks that were cut to a workable shape while frozen and then thawed before being CT scanned. Secondly, we made a patient breast phantom using a breast prosthesis filled with water and placed on a flat surface. Dose distributions in the animal and breast phantoms were measured using the MatriXX PT device.ResultsThe measured doses to the neck and breast phantoms compared exceptionally well with doses calculated by the analytical pencil beam (APB) and MC algorithms. The comparisons between APB and MC dose calculations and MatriXX PT measurements yielded an average depth difference for best gamma agreement of <1 mm for the neck phantoms. For the breast phantom better average gamma pass rates between measured and calculated dose distributions were observed for the MC than for the APB algorithms.ConclusionsThe MC dose calculations are more accurate than the APB calculations for the static phantoms conditions we evaluated, especially in areas where significant inhomogeneous interfaces are traversed by the beam.