Optimized treatment planning for prostate cancer comparing IMPT, VHEET and 15 MV IMXT.

The merits of intensity-modulated very-high energy electron therapy (VHEET) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in relation to intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT) with respect to the treatment of the prostate have been quantified. Optimized dose distributions were designed for 5-11 beams of 250 MeV VHEET and 15 MV IMXT as well as 1-9 beam ports of IMPT. In the case of the comparison between 250 MeV VHEET and 15 MV IMXT, it was found that the quality of target coverage achievable with VHEET was comparable to or sometimes better than that provided by IMXT. However, VHEET provided an improvement over IMXT in the dose sparing of the sensitive structures and normal tissues. Compared to IMXT, VHEET decreased the mean rectal dose and bladder dose by up to 10% of the prescribed target dose, while reducing by up to 12% of the prescribed target dose the integral dose to normal tissues. In quantifying the merits of IMPT relative to IMXT, it was found that using intensity-modulated proton beams for inverse planning instead of intensity-modulated photon beams improved target dose homogeneity by up to 1.3% of the prescribed target dose, while reducing the mean rectal dose, bladder dose, and normal tissue integral dose by up to 27%, 30% and 28% of the prescribed target dose respectively. The comparison of optimized planning for IMPT and VHEET showed that the quality of target coverage achievable with IMPT is comparable to or better (by up to 1.3% of the prescribed target dose) than that provided by VHEET. Compared to VHEET, IMPT delivered a mean rectal dose and a bladder dose that was lower by up to 17% and 23% of prescribed target dose respectively, and also reduced the integral dose to normal tissues by up to 17% of the prescribed target dose. These results indicate that of the three modalities the greatest dose escalation will be possible with IMPT, then VHEET, and then IMXT. It follows that IMPT will result in the highest probability of complication-free tumour control, while IMXT will provide the lowest probability.

[1]  E. Grusell,et al.  The narrow proton beam therapy unit at the the Svedberg Laboratory in Uppsala. , 1991, Acta oncologica.

[2]  B. Zackrisson,et al.  Intensity modulation with electrons: calculations, measurements and clinical applications. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  Methods of image reconstruction from projections applied to conformation radiotherapy. , 1990, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  G. Sandison,et al.  Optimization of intensity-modulated very high energy (50-250 MeV) electron therapy. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  A. Brahme,et al.  A generalized pencil beam algorithm for optimization of radiation therapy. , 1994, Medical physics.

[6]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization , 1997, TOMS.

[7]  A. Lomax,et al.  Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  C. Ma,et al.  Energy- and intensity-modulated electron beams for radiotherapy. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization , 1995, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[10]  Anders Gustafsson,et al.  Development of a versatile algorithm for optimization of radiation therapy , 1996 .

[11]  L Papiez,et al.  150-250 meV electron beams in radiation therapy. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  P Andreo,et al.  Monte Carlo and analytical calculation of proton pencil beams for computerized treatment plan optimization , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Anders Brahme,et al.  Treatment Optimization Using Physical and Radiobiological Objective Functions , 1995 .

[14]  Optimization of conformal electron beam therapy using energy‐ and fluence‐modulated beams , 1996 .

[15]  T Bortfeld,et al.  Optimized planning using physical objectives and constraints. , 1999, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[16]  A. Gustafsson,et al.  Optimization of 3D conformal electron beam therapy in inhomogeneous media by concomitant fluence and energy modulation. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  A Brahme,et al.  Development of Radiation Therapy Optimization , 2000, Acta oncologica.

[18]  A Brahme,et al.  Design principles and clinical possibilities with a new generation of radiation therapy equipment. A review. , 1987, Acta oncologica.

[19]  P. Hoban,et al.  Possibilities for tailoring dose distributions through the manipulation of electron beam characteristics. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  J. Baró,et al.  PENELOPE: An algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation of the penetration and energy loss of electrons and positrons in matter , 1995 .

[21]  A Brahme,et al.  Optimal electron and combined electron and photon therapy in the phase space of complication-free cure. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  R Mohan,et al.  Energy and angular distributions of photons from medical linear accelerators. , 1985, Medical physics.

[23]  B. Zackrisson,et al.  Exploration of new treatment modalities offered by high energy (up to 50 MeV) electrons and photons. , 1997, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[24]  E. Pedroni,et al.  Intensity modulated proton therapy: a clinical example. , 2001, Medical physics.

[25]  G. Sandison,et al.  Intensity and energy modulated radiotherapy with proton beams: variables affecting optimal prostate plan. , 2002, Medical physics.