Cargando…
Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy
To improve the penumbra of low‐energy beams used in spot‐scanning proton therapy, various collimation systems have been proposed and used in clinics. In this paper, focused on patient‐specific brass collimators, the collimator‐scattered protons' physical and biological effects were investigated...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612695/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31237090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12653 |
_version_ | 1783432918129967104 |
---|---|
author | Ueno, Koki Matsuura, Taeko Hirayama, Shusuke Takao, Seishin Ueda, Hideaki Matsuo, Yuto Yoshimura, Takaaki Umegaki, Kikuo |
author_facet | Ueno, Koki Matsuura, Taeko Hirayama, Shusuke Takao, Seishin Ueda, Hideaki Matsuo, Yuto Yoshimura, Takaaki Umegaki, Kikuo |
author_sort | Ueno, Koki |
collection | PubMed |
description | To improve the penumbra of low‐energy beams used in spot‐scanning proton therapy, various collimation systems have been proposed and used in clinics. In this paper, focused on patient‐specific brass collimators, the collimator‐scattered protons' physical and biological effects were investigated. The Geant4 Monte Carlo code was used to model the collimators mounted on the scanning nozzle of the Hokkaido University Hospital. A systematic survey was performed in water phantom with various‐sized rectangular targets; range (5–20 cm), spread‐out Bragg peak (SOBP) (5–10 cm), and field size (2 × 2–16 × 16 cm(2)). It revealed that both the range and SOBP dependences of the physical dose increase had similar trends to passive scattering methods, that is, it increased largely with the range and slightly with the SOBP. The physical impact was maximized at the surface (3%–22% for the tested geometries) and decreased with depth. In contrast, the field size (FS) dependence differed from that observed in passive scattering: the increase was high for both small and large FSs. This may be attributed to the different phase‐space shapes at the target boundary between the two dose delivery methods. Next, the biological impact was estimated based on the increase in dose‐averaged linear energy transfer (LET (d)) and relative biological effectiveness (RBE). The LET (d) of the collimator‐scattered protons were several keV/μm higher than that of unscattered ones; however, since this large increase was observed only at the positions receiving a small scattered dose, the overall LET (d) increase was negligible. As a consequence, the RBE increase did not exceed 0.05. Finally, the effects on patient geometries were estimated by testing two patient plans, and a negligible RBE increase (0.9% at most in the critical organs at surface) was observed in both cases. Therefore, the impact of collimator‐scattered protons is almost entirely attributed to the physical dose increase, while the RBE increase is negligible. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6612695 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66126952019-07-16 Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy Ueno, Koki Matsuura, Taeko Hirayama, Shusuke Takao, Seishin Ueda, Hideaki Matsuo, Yuto Yoshimura, Takaaki Umegaki, Kikuo J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics To improve the penumbra of low‐energy beams used in spot‐scanning proton therapy, various collimation systems have been proposed and used in clinics. In this paper, focused on patient‐specific brass collimators, the collimator‐scattered protons' physical and biological effects were investigated. The Geant4 Monte Carlo code was used to model the collimators mounted on the scanning nozzle of the Hokkaido University Hospital. A systematic survey was performed in water phantom with various‐sized rectangular targets; range (5–20 cm), spread‐out Bragg peak (SOBP) (5–10 cm), and field size (2 × 2–16 × 16 cm(2)). It revealed that both the range and SOBP dependences of the physical dose increase had similar trends to passive scattering methods, that is, it increased largely with the range and slightly with the SOBP. The physical impact was maximized at the surface (3%–22% for the tested geometries) and decreased with depth. In contrast, the field size (FS) dependence differed from that observed in passive scattering: the increase was high for both small and large FSs. This may be attributed to the different phase‐space shapes at the target boundary between the two dose delivery methods. Next, the biological impact was estimated based on the increase in dose‐averaged linear energy transfer (LET (d)) and relative biological effectiveness (RBE). The LET (d) of the collimator‐scattered protons were several keV/μm higher than that of unscattered ones; however, since this large increase was observed only at the positions receiving a small scattered dose, the overall LET (d) increase was negligible. As a consequence, the RBE increase did not exceed 0.05. Finally, the effects on patient geometries were estimated by testing two patient plans, and a negligible RBE increase (0.9% at most in the critical organs at surface) was observed in both cases. Therefore, the impact of collimator‐scattered protons is almost entirely attributed to the physical dose increase, while the RBE increase is negligible. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6612695/ /pubmed/31237090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12653 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Ueno, Koki Matsuura, Taeko Hirayama, Shusuke Takao, Seishin Ueda, Hideaki Matsuo, Yuto Yoshimura, Takaaki Umegaki, Kikuo Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy |
title | Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy |
title_full | Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy |
title_fullStr | Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy |
title_short | Physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy |
title_sort | physical and biological impacts of collimator‐scattered protons in spot‐scanning proton therapy |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612695/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31237090 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12653 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT uenokoki physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy AT matsuurataeko physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy AT hirayamashusuke physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy AT takaoseishin physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy AT uedahideaki physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy AT matsuoyuto physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy AT yoshimuratakaaki physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy AT umegakikikuo physicalandbiologicalimpactsofcollimatorscatteredprotonsinspotscanningprotontherapy |