RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Compared to intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), proton arc therapy (PAT) is expected to improve dose conformality, delivery efficiency, and provide a more favorable LET distribution. Alternatively, the low-dose bath is potentially spread over larger volumes, which could impact the likelihood of developing a radiation-induced, secondary cancer (SC). The goal of this study was to evaluate this risk in several anatomical sites using newly developed commercial tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment plans encompassing six anatomical sites, five patients per site, and three techniques per patient were created using RayStation. Techniques included PAT and IMPT for protons, and either volumetrically modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for photons. Risk estimates were based on the organ-equivalent dose (OED) concept using both Schneider's mechanistic dose-response model for carcinoma induction and a linear dose-response model. RESULTS: With few exceptions, mean and integral dose were lowest with PAT. For protons, the factor OEDIMPT/OEDPAT ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 with both the mechanistic and linear model, while for photons OEDphoton/OEDPAT ranged from 1.5 to 10 using the mechanistic model and 1.3-9.6 using the linear model. A strong correlation was found between mean dose and OED for organs with significant repopulation/repair (high R value) and less cell death from single hit interactions (low α value). CONCLUSION: Based results from both mechanistic and linear risk models, the transition from IMPT to PAT should not substantially affect SC risk in patients treated with proton therapy. Additionally, when using Schneider's model, the shapes of the dose-response curves can be used as a good predictor of how SC risk will respond to shifts from intermediate dose to low dose as anticipated when moving from IMPT to PAT.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Eye-dedicated proton therapy (PT) facilities are used to treat malignant intraocular lesions, especially uveal melanoma (UM). The first commercial ocular PT beamline from Varian was installed in the Netherlands. In this work, the conceptual design of the new eyeline is presented. In addition, a comprehensive comparison against five PT centers with dedicated ocular beamlines is performed, and the clinical impact of the identified differences is analyzed. MATERIAL/METHODS: The HollandPTC eyeline was characterized. Four centers in Europe and one in the United States joined the study. All centers use a cyclotron for proton beam generation and an eye-dedicated nozzle. Differences among the chosen ocular beamlines were in the design of the nozzle, nominal energy, and energy spectrum. The following parameters were collected for all centers: technical characteristics and a set of distal, proximal, and lateral region measurements. The measurements were performed with detectors available in-house at each institution. The institutions followed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Report Series (TRS)-398 Code of Practice for absolute dose measurement, and the IAEA TRS-398 Code of Practice, its modified version or International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report No. 78 for spread-out Bragg peak normalization. Energy spreads of the pristine Bragg peaks were obtained with Monte Carlo simulations using Geant4. Seven tumor-specific case scenarios were simulated to evaluate the clinical impact among centers: small, medium, and large UM, located either anteriorly, at the equator, or posteriorly within the eye. Differences in the depth dose distributions were calculated. RESULTS: A pristine Bragg peak of HollandPTC eyeline corresponded to the constant energy of 75 MeV (maximal range 3.97 g/cm2 in water) with an energy spread of 1.10 MeV. The pristine Bragg peaks for the five participating centers varied from 62.50 to 104.50 MeV with an energy spread variation between 0.10 and 0.70 MeV. Differences in the average distal fall-offs and lateral penumbrae (LPs) (over the complete set of clinically available beam modulations) among all centers were up to 0.25 g/cm2 , and 0.80 mm, respectively. Average distal fall-offs of the HollandPTC eyeline were 0.20 g/cm2 , and LPs were between 1.50 and 2.15 mm from proximal to distal regions, respectively. Treatment time, around 60 s, was comparable among all centers. The virtual source-to-axis distance of 120 cm at HollandPTC was shorter than for the five participating centers (range: 165-350 cm). Simulated depth dose distributions demonstrated the impact of the different beamline characteristics among institutions. The largest difference was observed for a small UM located at the posterior pole, where a proximal dose between two extreme centers was up to 20%. CONCLUSIONS: HollandPTC eyeline specifications are in accordance with five other ocular PT beamlines. Similar clinical concepts can be applied to expect the same high local tumor control. Dosimetrical properties among the six institutions induce most likely differences in ocular radiation-related toxicities. This interinstitutional comparison could support further research on ocular post-PT complications. Finally, the findings reported in this study could be used to define dosimetrical guidelines for ocular PT to unify the concepts among institutions.
