ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare photons, protons and carbon ions and their combinations for treatment of atypical and anaplastical skull base meningioma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two planning target volumes (PTVinitial/PTVboost) were delineated for 10 patients (prescribed doses 50 Gy(RBE) and 10 Gy(RBE)). Plans for intensity modulated photon (IMXT), proton (IMPT) and carbon ion therapy ((12)C) were generated assuming a non-gantry scenario for particles. The following combinations were compared: IMXT+IMXT/IMPT/(12)C; IMPT+IMPT/(12)C; and (12)C+(12)C. Plan quality was evaluated by target conformity and homogeneity (CI, HI), V95%, D2% and D50% and dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters for organs-at-risk (OAR). If dose escalation was possible, it was performed until OAR tolerance levels were reached. RESULTS: CI was worst for IMXT. HI<0.05±0.01 for (12)C was significantly better than for IMXT. For all treatment options dose escalation above 60 Gy(RBE) was possible for four patients, but impossible for six patients. Compared to IMXT+IMXT, ion beam therapy showed an improved sparing for most OARs, e.g. using protons and carbon ions D50% was reduced by more than 50% for the ipsilateral eye and the brainstem. CONCLUSION: Highly conformal IMPT and (12)C plans could be generated with a non-gantry scenario. Improved OAR sparing favors both sole (12)C and/or IMPT plans.
Subject(s)
Meningeal Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Meningioma/radiotherapy , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Skull Base Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Carbon/chemistry , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Organs at Risk , Photons/therapeutic use , Proton TherapyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The applicability of various detectors for small field dosimetry and whether there are differences in the detector response when irradiated with FF- and FFF-beams was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Output factors of 6 and 10 MV FF- and FFF-beams were measured with 14 different online detectors using field sizes between 10 × 10 and 0.6 × 0.6 cm(2) at a depth of 5 cm of water in isocentric conditions. Alanine pellets with a diameter of 5 and 2.5mm were used as reference dosimeters for field sizes down to 1.2 × 1.2 and 0.6 × 0.6 cm(2), respectively. The ratio of the relative output measured with the online detectors to the relative output measured with alanine was evaluated (referred to as dose response ratio). RESULTS: The dose response ratios of two different shielded diodes measured with 10 MV FF-beams deviated substantially by 2-3% compared to FFF-beams at a field size of 0.6 × 0.6 cm(2). This difference was less pronounced for 6 MV FF- and FFF-beams. For all other detectors the dose response ratios of FF- and FFF-beams showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: The dose response ratios of the majority of the detectors agreed within the measurement uncertainty when irradiated with FF- and FFF-beams. Of all investigated detectors, the microDiamond and the unshielded diodes would require only small corrections which make them suitable candidates for small field dosimetry in FF- and FFF-beams.
