Reassessment of the Necessity of the Proton Gantry: Analysis of Beam Orientations From 4332 Treatments at the Massachusetts General Hospital Proton Center Over the Past 10 Years.

PURPOSE To retrospectively analyze the beam approaches used in gantry-based proton treatments, and to reassess the practical advantages of the gantry, compared with beam approaches that are achievable without a gantry, in the context of present-day technology. METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed the proton therapy plans of 4332 patients treated on gantries at our hospital, delivered by the double scattering technique (n=4228) and, more recently, pencil beam scanning (PBS) (n=104). Beam approaches, relative to the patient frame, were analyzed individually to identify cases that could be treated without a gantry. Three treatment configurations were considered, with the patient in lying position, sitting position, or both. The FIXED geometry includes a fixed horizontal portal. The BEND geometry enables a limited vertical inflection of the beam by up to 20°. The MOVE geometry allows for flexibility of the patient head and body setup. RESULTS The percentage of patients with head and neck tumors that could be treated without a gantry using double scattering was 44% in FIXED, 70% in 20° BEND, and 100% in 90° MOVE. For torso regions, 99% of patients could be treated in 20° BEND. Of 104 PBS treatments, all but 1 could be reproduced with FIXED geometry. The only exception would require a 10° BEND capability. Note here that the PBS treatments were applied to select anatomic sites, including only 2 patients with skull-base tumors. CONCLUSIONS The majority of practical beam approaches can be realized with gantry-less delivery, aided by limited beam bending and patient movements. Practical limitations of the MOVE geometry, and treatments requiring a combination of lying and sitting positions, may lower the percentage of head and neck patients who could be treated without a gantry. Further investigation into planning, immobilization, and imaging is needed to remove the practical limitations and to facilitate proton treatment without a gantry.

[1]  Proton radiotherapy: the biological effect of treating alternating subsets of fields for different treatment fractions. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  R. Kohno,et al.  Proton beam therapy for unresectable malignancies of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  S Safai,et al.  The rationale for intensity-modulated proton therapy in geometrically challenging cases , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Ronald C. Chen,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton therapy, or conformal radiation therapy and morbidity and disease control in localized prostate cancer. , 2012, JAMA.

[5]  Wei Liu,et al.  Evaluation of biodistribution and safety of adenovirus vector containing MDR1 in mice , 2010, Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR.

[6]  Andrew K. Lee,et al.  Quantitative analysis of beam delivery parameters and treatment process time for proton beam therapy. , 2011, Medical physics.

[7]  Thomas Bortfeld,et al.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning. , 2008, Medical physics.

[8]  Lei Dong,et al.  Advantages of simulating thoracic cancer patients in an upright position. , 2014, Practical radiation oncology.

[9]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: a systematic review of literature. , 2011, The oncologist.

[10]  A. Trofimov,et al.  Proton radiotherapy for pediatric central nervous system germ cell tumors: early clinical outcomes. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  Thomas Bortfeld,et al.  Evolution of technology to optimize the delivery of proton therapy: the third generation. , 2013, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[12]  Thomas Bortfeld,et al.  Proton therapy: the present and the future. , 2013, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[13]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  Potential benefits of scanned intensity-modulated proton therapy versus advanced photon therapy with regard to sparing of the salivary glands in oropharyngeal cancer. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  T Solberg,et al.  Cone-beam CT using a mobile C-arm: a registration solution for IGRT with an optical tracking system. , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Indra J Das,et al.  Proton Therapy Facility Planning From a Clinical and Operational Model , 2015, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[16]  A J Lomax,et al.  A treatment planning inter-comparison of proton and intensity modulated photon radiotherapy. , 1999, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Proton Beams to Replace Photon Beams in Radical Dose Treatments , 2003, Acta oncologica.

[18]  Michael Goitein,et al.  Intensity modulation in radiotherapy: photons versus protons in the paranasal sinus. , 2003, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[19]  Y. Pu,et al.  A treatment planning comparison of passive-scattering and intensity-modulated proton therapy for typical tumor sites. , 2012, Journal of radiation research.

[20]  M. Jermann Particle Therapy Statistics in 2013 , 2014 .

[21]  Marco D'Andrea,et al.  Patient positioning in the proton radiotherapy era , 2010, Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR.

[22]  R Miralbell,et al.  Optimizing radiotherapy of orbital and paraorbital tumors: intensity-modulated X-ray beams vs. intensity-modulated proton beams. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  Damien C Weber,et al.  A treatment planning comparison of intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for paraspinal sarcomas. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[24]  R. Orecchia,et al.  Initial clinical experience with scanned proton beams at the Italian National Center for Hadrontherapy (CNAO) , 2013, Journal of radiation research.

[25]  Richard Wilson A Brief History of the Harvard University Cyclotrons , 2004 .

[26]  Dávid Papp,et al.  The emergence of nonuniform spatiotemporal fractionation schemes within the standard BED model. , 2015, Medical physics.

[27]  G Baroni,et al.  Image guided particle therapy in CNAO room 2: implementation and clinical validation. , 2015, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[28]  Shinichi Minohara,et al.  Heavy ion synchrotron for medical use —HIMAC project at NIRS-Japan— , 1992 .

[29]  U Isacsson,et al.  Potential advantages of protons over conventional radiation beams for paraspinal tumours. , 1997, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[30]  N. Nitta,et al.  Diaphragmatic motion in the sitting and supine positions: Healthy subject study using a vertically open magnetic resonance system , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[31]  A Fogliata,et al.  A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumours. , 2001, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[32]  M Goitein,et al.  The relative costs of proton and X-ray radiation therapy. , 2003, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).