Cargando…
Towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyond
Since the middle of the 20th century, particle therapy has been in focus for patient treatments. In 1946, Robert Wilson proposed the use of charged particles for tumor therapy, and since then, the clinical use of protons and heavier ions, mainly carbon ions, has become more widespread. The first cli...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Lenguaje: | eng |
Publicado: |
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrt039 http://cds.cern.ch/record/1606519 |
_version_ | 1780931685499535360 |
---|---|
author | Combs, Stephanie E Djosanjh, Manjit Pötter, Richad Orrechia, Roberto Haberer, Thomas Durante, Marco Fossati, Piero Parodi, Katia Balosso, Jacques Amaldi, Ugo Baumann, Michael Debus, Jürgen |
author_facet | Combs, Stephanie E Djosanjh, Manjit Pötter, Richad Orrechia, Roberto Haberer, Thomas Durante, Marco Fossati, Piero Parodi, Katia Balosso, Jacques Amaldi, Ugo Baumann, Michael Debus, Jürgen |
author_sort | Combs, Stephanie E |
collection | CERN |
description | Since the middle of the 20th century, particle therapy has been in focus for patient treatments. In 1946, Robert Wilson proposed the use of charged particles for tumor therapy, and since then, the clinical use of protons and heavier ions, mainly carbon ions, has become more widespread. The first clinical evidence was obtained in Berkeley, treating radiation-resistant targets with various ion species. The main advantage of particle beams derive from their physical properties: through an inverted dose profile, regions within the entry channel of the beam can be spared of dose, while a steep dose deposition can be directed in an energydependent manner into the defined treatment volume (Bragg Peak). The following dose fall-off spares tissue behind the target volume, thus reducing integral dose significantly compared to when using photons. Heavier charged particles, such as carbon ions or oxygen, are additionally associated with an increased relative biological effectiveness (RBE), while the RBE of protons is commonly accepted to be about 1.1. Recent observation, however, suggests that this may be an oversimplification. |
id | cern-1606519 |
institution | Organización Europea para la Investigación Nuclear |
language | eng |
publishDate | 2013 |
record_format | invenio |
spelling | cern-16065192022-08-10T20:03:22Zdoi:10.1093/jrr/rrt039http://cds.cern.ch/record/1606519engCombs, Stephanie EDjosanjh, ManjitPötter, RichadOrrechia, RobertoHaberer, ThomasDurante, MarcoFossati, PieroParodi, KatiaBalosso, JacquesAmaldi, UgoBaumann, MichaelDebus, JürgenTowards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyondHealth Physics and Radiation EffectsSince the middle of the 20th century, particle therapy has been in focus for patient treatments. In 1946, Robert Wilson proposed the use of charged particles for tumor therapy, and since then, the clinical use of protons and heavier ions, mainly carbon ions, has become more widespread. The first clinical evidence was obtained in Berkeley, treating radiation-resistant targets with various ion species. The main advantage of particle beams derive from their physical properties: through an inverted dose profile, regions within the entry channel of the beam can be spared of dose, while a steep dose deposition can be directed in an energydependent manner into the defined treatment volume (Bragg Peak). The following dose fall-off spares tissue behind the target volume, thus reducing integral dose significantly compared to when using photons. Heavier charged particles, such as carbon ions or oxygen, are additionally associated with an increased relative biological effectiveness (RBE), while the RBE of protons is commonly accepted to be about 1.1. Recent observation, however, suggests that this may be an oversimplification.oai:cds.cern.ch:16065192013 |
spellingShingle | Health Physics and Radiation Effects Combs, Stephanie E Djosanjh, Manjit Pötter, Richad Orrechia, Roberto Haberer, Thomas Durante, Marco Fossati, Piero Parodi, Katia Balosso, Jacques Amaldi, Ugo Baumann, Michael Debus, Jürgen Towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyond |
title | Towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyond |
title_full | Towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyond |
title_fullStr | Towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyond |
title_full_unstemmed | Towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyond |
title_short | Towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: ENLIGHT, PARTNER, ULICE and beyond |
title_sort | towards clinical evidence in particle therapy: enlight, partner, ulice and beyond |
topic | Health Physics and Radiation Effects |
url | https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrt039 http://cds.cern.ch/record/1606519 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT combsstephaniee towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT djosanjhmanjit towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT potterrichad towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT orrechiaroberto towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT habererthomas towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT durantemarco towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT fossatipiero towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT parodikatia towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT balossojacques towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT amaldiugo towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT baumannmichael towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond AT debusjurgen towardsclinicalevidenceinparticletherapyenlightpartneruliceandbeyond |