Optimization of carbon ion and proton treatment plans using the raster-scanning technique for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Issue 1 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dreher, Constantin; Habermehl, Daniel; Ecker, Swantje; Brons, Stephan; El-Shafie, Rami; Jäkel, Oliver; Debus, Jürgen; Combs, Stephanie
• Is Part Of: Radiation oncology. Volume 10:Issue 1(2015)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 9
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer -- LAPC -- Carbon ion -- Proton -- HIT; Cancer -- Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1186/s13014-015-0538-x
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-717X

Abstract

Abstract Background The aim of the thesis is to improve radiation plans of patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer by using carbon ion and proton beams. Patients and methods Using the treatment planning systemSyngo RT Planning (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) a total of 50 treatment plans have been created for five patients with the dose schedule 15 × 3 Gy(RBE). With reference to the anatomy, five field configurations were considered to be relevant. The plans were analyzed with respect to dose distribution and individual anatomy, and compared using a customized index. Results Within the index the three-field configurations yielded the best results, though with a high variety of score points (field setup 5, carbon ion: median 74 (range 48–101)). The maximum dose in the myelon is low (e.g. case 3, carbon ion: 21.5 Gy(RBE)). A single posterior field generally spares the organs at risk, but the maximum dose in the myelon is high (e.g. case 3, carbon ion: 32.9 Gy(RBE)). Two oblique posterior fields resulted in acceptable maximum doses in the myelon (e.g. case 3, carbon ion: 26.9 Gy(RBE)). The single-field configuration and the two oblique posterior fields had a small score dispersion (carbon ion: median 66 and 58 (range 62–72 and 40–69)). In cases with topographic proximity of the organs at risk to the target volume, the single-field configuration scored as well as the three-field configurations. Conclusion In summary, the three-field configurations showed the best dose distributions. A single posterior field seems to be robust and beneficial in case of difficult topographical conditions and topographical proximity of organs at risk to the target volume. A setup with two oblique posterior fields is a reasonable compromise between three-field and single-field configurations.