SCIRP Mobile Website
Paper Submission

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Tseung, H.S.W.C., Ma, J.S., Kreofsky, C.R., Ma, D.J. and Beltran, C. (2016) Clinically Applicable Monte Carlo-Based Biological Dose Optimization for the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancers with Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology · Biology · Physics, 95, 1535-1543.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.03.041

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Robustness Evaluation of a Novel Proton Beam Geometry for Head and Neck Patients Treated with Pencil Beam Scanning Therapy

    AUTHORS: Sheng Huang, Haoyang Liu, Jiajian Shen, Huifang Zhai, Maura Kirk, Brett Hartl, Alexander Lin, James McDonough, Stefan Both, Haibo Lin

    KEYWORDS: Head and Neck, Robustness, Proton Therapy, Pencil Beam Scanning

    JOURNAL NAME: International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, Vol.7 No.3, July 18, 2018

    ABSTRACT: Background: To evaluate the robustness of head and neck treatment using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique with respect to range uncertainty (RU) and setup errors (SE), and to establish a robust PBS planning strategy for future treatment. Methods and Materials: Ten consecutive patients were planned with a novel proton field geometry (combination of two posterior oblique fields and one anterior field with gradient dose match) using single-field uniform dose (SFUD) planning technique and the proton plans were dosimetrically compared to two coplanar arc VMAT plans. Robustness of the plans, with respect to range uncertainties (RU = ± 3% for proton) and setup errors (SE = 2.25 mm for proton and VMAT), in terms of deviations to target coverage (CTV D98%) and OAR doses (max/mean), were evaluated and compared for each patient under worst case scenarios. Results: Dosimetrically, PBS plans provided better sparing to larynx (p = 0.005), oral cavity (p -1.1% ± 1.3 % vs -0.4% ± 0.7% for nodal CTV and -1.4% ± 1.2 vs -0.4% ± 0.5% % for boost CTV). Overall, the magnitudes of variation of CTV D98% to combined SE and RU were found to be similar to the impact of the SE on the VMAT plans (-1.6% ± 1.9% vs -1.7% ± 1.4% for nodal CTV and -1.9% ± 1.6% vs -1.3% ± 1.5% for boost CTV). Compared to VMAT, a larger range of relative dose deviations were found for OARs in proton plans, but safe doses were maintained for cord (41.8 ± 3.6 Gy for PBS and 41.7 ± 3.9 Gy for VMAT) and brainstem (35.2 ± 8.4 Gy for PBS and 36.2 ± 5.1 Gy for VMAT) in worst case scenarios. Conclusions: Compared to VMAT, proton plans containing three SFUD fields with superior-inferior gradient dose matching had improved sparing to larynx, contralateral parotid and oral cavity, while providing similar robustness of target coverage. Evaluation of OAR dose robustness showed higher sensitivities to uncertainties for proton plans, but safe dose levels were maintained for cord and brainstem.