Spread-out antiproton beams deliver poor physical dose distributions for radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Antiprotons have been suggested as a possibly superior modality for radiotherapy, due to the energy released when they annihilate, which enhances the Bragg peak and introduces a high-LET component to the dose. Previous studies have focused on small-diameter near-monoenergetic antiproton beams. The goal of this work was to study more clinically relevant beams. METHODS We used Monte Carlo techniques to simulate 120 and 200 MeV beams of both antiprotons and protons of 1 x 1 and 10 x 10 cm(2) areas, impinging on water. RESULTS An annihilating antiproton loses little energy locally; most goes into long-range secondary particles. When clinically typical field sizes are considered, these particles create a substantial dose halo around the primary field and degrade its lateral fall-off. Spreading the dose in depth further intensifies these effects. CONCLUSIONS The physical dose distributions of spread-out antiproton beams of clinically relevant size (e.g. 10 x 10 cm(2) area) are substantially inferior to those of proton beams, exhibiting a dose halo and broadened penumbra. Studies on the value of antiproton beams, taking radiobiological effectiveness into account, need to assess such realistic beams and determine whether their inferior dose distributions do not undermine the potential value of antiprotons for all but the smallest fields.

[1]  R. A. Cox,et al.  A heavy particle comparative study. Part III: OER and RBE. , 1978, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  H Paganetti,et al.  Accurate Monte Carlo simulations for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance for a proton radiation therapy facility. , 2004, Medical physics.

[3]  F. M. Smith,et al.  ANTIPROTON-NUCLEON ANNIHILATION PROCESS, (ANTIPROTON COLLABORATION EXPERIMENT) , 1957 .

[4]  A. Ferrari,et al.  FLUKA: A Multi-Particle Transport Code , 2005 .

[5]  M. Kunze,et al.  Branching Ratios for p(over)-bar-pAnnihilation at Rest into Two-Body Final States , 2001 .

[6]  S. Howe,et al.  Antiproton portable traps and medical applications , 1997 .

[7]  H Paganetti,et al.  Test of GEANT3 and GEANT4 nuclear models for 160 MeV protons stopping in CH2. , 2003, Medical physics.

[8]  H. Paganetti,et al.  Physics Settings for Using the Geant4 Toolkit in Proton Therapy , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[9]  N. Digiacomo,et al.  Low energy antiproton-nucleus interactions , 1982 .

[10]  Eric J Hall Antiprotons for radiotherapy? , 2006, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[11]  M. Kunze,et al.  Annihilation at rest of antiprotons and protons into neutral particles , 2003 .

[12]  Nzhde Agazaryan,et al.  The biological effectiveness of antiproton irradiation. , 2006, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  T. Kalogeropoulos,et al.  Possible biomedical applications of antiproton beams: focused radiation transfer. , 1984, Radiation research.

[14]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  O. Jäkel,et al.  The antiproton depth–dose curve in water , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  W. M. Powell,et al.  Antiproton Interactions in Hydrogen and Carbon below 200 Mev , 1960 .

[17]  R. A. Cox,et al.  A heavy particle comparative study. Part II: cell survival versus depth. , 1978, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Monte Carlo calculations for absolute dosimetry to determine machine outputs for proton therapy fields , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  A. Sullivan A measurement of the local energy deposition by antiprotons coming to rest in tissue-like material. , 1985, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  F. Balestra,et al.  pp annihilation cross section at very low energy , 1996 .

[21]  M. Burchell,et al.  Observation of radiative pp annihilation into a Φ meson , 1995 .

[22]  L. Santi,et al.  P̄P partial cross sections at low energy , 1997 .

[23]  L. Tauscher,et al.  Proton-antiproton annihilations at rest into π0ω, π0η, π0γ, π0π0, and π0η′ , 1983 .

[24]  Hayes,et al.  Review of particle properties. , 1978, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[25]  T. Solberg,et al.  Biological effectiveness of antiproton annihilation , 2004 .

[26]  G. Goldhaber,et al.  Antiproton-Nucleon Annihilation Process. II , 1959 .

[27]  N. Mokhov,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF THE PROMPT RADIATION HAZARDS OF TRAPPED ANTIPROTONS , 2003, Health physics.

[28]  U. Oelfke,et al.  Direct comparison of biologically optimized spread-out bragg peaks for protons and carbon ions. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.