In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes.

PURPOSE We estimated the potential advantage of remote positioning (RP) vs. in-room positioning (IP) for a proton therapy facility in terms of patient throughput. MATERIALS AND METHODS Monte Carlo simulations of facilities with one, two or three gantries were performed. A sensitivity analysis was applied by varying the imaging and setup correction system (ICS), the speed of transporters (for RP) and beam switching time. Possible advantages of using three couches (for RP) or of switching the beam between fields was also investigated. RESULTS For a single gantry facility, an average of 20% more patients could be treated using RP: ranging from +45%, if a fast transporter and slow ICS were simulated, to -14% if a slow transporter and fast ICS was simulated. For two gantries, about 10% more patients could be treated with RP, ranging from +32% (fast transporter, slow ICS) to -12% (slow transporter, fast ICS). The ability to switch beam between fields did not substantially influence the throughput. In addition, the use of three transporters showed increased delays and therefore a slight reduction of the fractions executables. For three gantries, RP and IP showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS The advantage of RP vs. IP strongly depends on ICS and the speed of the transporters. For RP to be advantageous, reduced transport times are required. The advantage of RP decreases with increasing number of gantries.

[1]  H. Sze,et al.  RapidArc radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer: single-arc and double-arc techniques vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy. , 2012, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[2]  Ke Sheng,et al.  Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: plan quality, delivery efficiency and accuracy. , 2010, Medical physics.

[3]  Andrew Jackson,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy. , 2002, Cancer journal.

[4]  Alessandra Bolsi,et al.  Experiences at the Paul Scherrer Institute with a remote patient positioning procedure for high-throughput proton radiation therapy. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[6]  B. Jalaludin,et al.  Technology enhancements and changes in radiotherapy throughput in New South Wales. , 2005, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[7]  Steve B. Jiang,et al.  Effects of intra-fraction motion on IMRT dose delivery: statistical analysis and simulation. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Chiao-Ling Tsai,et al.  Treatment and dosimetric advantages between VMAT, IMRT, and helical tomotherapy in prostate cancer. , 2011, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[9]  F. Lohr,et al.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[10]  Vira Chankong,et al.  On-line re-optimization of prostate IMRT plans for adaptive radiation therapy , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Zuofeng Li,et al.  Early outcomes from three prospective trials of image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.