Back to Authors

Both, Stefan

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6652-6054

Mayo Clinic

University Medical Center Groningen

Citations 3

Proton PBS Planning Techniques, Robustness Evaluation, and OAR Sparing for the Whole-Brain Part of Craniospinal Axis Irradiation
Matysiak, W , Landeweerd, Marieke C., Bannink, Agata , Weide, Hiska L. van der , Brouwer, Charlotte L. , Langendijk, Johannes A. , Both, Stefan , Maduro, John H. , Matysiak, Witold P , van der Weide, Hiska L , Gawryszuk, A.

Cancers | February 23, 2024 | Volume: 16 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 892

10.3390/cancers16050892 Get It

Proton therapy is a promising modality for craniospinal irradiation (CSI), offering dosimetric advantages over conventional treatments. While significant attention has been paid to spine fields, for the brain fields, only dose reduction to the lens of the eye has been reported. Hence, the objective of this study is to assess the potential gains and feasibility of adopting different treatment planning techniques for the entire brain within the CSI target. To this end, eight previously treated CSI patients underwent retrospective replanning using various techniques: (1) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization, (2) the modification/addition of field directions, and (3) the pre-optimization removal of superficially placed spots. The target coverage robustness was evaluated and dose comparisons for lenses, cochleae, and scalp were conducted, considering potential biological dose increases. The target coverage robustness was maintained across all plans, with minor reductions when superficial spot removal was utilized. Single- and multifield optimization showed comparable target coverage robustness and organ-at-risk sparing. A significant scalp sparing was achieved in adults but only limited in pediatric cases. Superficial spot removal contributed to scalp V30 Gy reduction at the expense of lower coverage robustness in specific cases. Lens sparing benefits from multiple field directions, while cochlear sparing remains impractical. Based on the results, all investigated plan types are deemed clinically adoptable.
Applications of Various Range Shifters for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Radiotherapy
Lin, Haibo , Chen, Qing , Zhai, Huifang , McDonough, James E., Tochner, Zelig, Both, Stefan , Shi, Chengyu , Huang, Sheng , Shen, Jiajian , Kang, Minglei , Deville, Curtiland , Simone, Charles B.

No container title available | March 10, 2021 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-283968/v1 Get It

Abstract Background: A range pull-back device, such as a machine-related range shifter (MRS) or a universal patient-related range shifter (UPRS), is needed in pencil beam scanning technique to treat shallow tumors. Methods: three UPRS made by QFix (Avondale, PA, USA) allow treating targets across the body: U-shaped bolus (UB), anterior lateral bolus (ALB) and couch top bolus (CTB). HN patients who used the UPRS were tested. The in-air spot sizes were measured and compared in this study at snout positions: 15 cm, 25 cm, and 35 cm. A solid water phantom with the ALB placed at 0, 10 and 20 cm air gaps to the phantom surface was also measured using a single-field optimized pencil beam scanning field. The two dimensional dose maps at the middle of the spread-out Bragg peak were measured using ion chamber array MatriXX PT (IBA-Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) located at iso-center and compared with the treatment planning system. Results: A UPRS can be consistently placed close to the patient and maintains a relatively small spot size resulting in improved dose distributions. However, when a UPRS is non-removable (e.g. thick couch top), the quality of volumetric imaging is degraded due to their high Z material construction, hindering the value of Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT). Limitations of using UPRS with small air gaps include reduced couch weight limit, potential collision with patient or immobilization devices and challenges using non-coplanar fields with certain UPRS. Our experience showed the combination of a U-shaped bolus exclusively for a head-and-neck target and an MRS as complimentary for head-and-neck targets as well as for all other treatment sites may be ideal to preserve the dosimetric advantages of pencil beam scanning proton treatments across the body. Conclusion: We have described how to implement UPRS and MRS for various clinical indications using the PBS technique, and comprehensively reviewed the advantage and disadvantages of URPS and MRS. We recommend the removable UB to be employed for the brain and HN treatments only while an automated MRS is used for all proton beams that require RS but not convenient or feasible to UB.
Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology
Paganetti, Harald , Beltran, Chris , Both, Stefan , Flanz, J., Grosshans, David R. , Knopf, Antje , Langendijk, Johannes A. , Nyström, Håkan, Raaymakers, Bas W. , Richter, Christian , Sawakuchi, Gabriel O. , Schippers, Marco, Teo, B, Unkelbach, Jan , Wohlfahrt, Patrick , Furutani, Keith, Sawakuchi, Gabriel O , Beltran, Chris J , Dong, Lei , Furutani, Keith M. , Grassberger, Clemens , Parodi, Katia , Shaitelman, Simona Flora , Lomax, Antony

Physics in Medicine & Biology | November 23, 2020 | Volume: 66 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 05RM01

10.1088/1361-6560/abcd16 Get It

Abstract The treatment of cancer with proton radiation therapy was first suggested in 1946 followed by the first treatments in the 1950s. As of 2020, almost 200 000 patients have been treated with proton beams worldwide and the number of operating proton therapy (PT) facilities will soon reach one hundred. PT has long moved from research institutions into hospital-based facilities that are increasingly being utilized with workflows similar to conventional radiation therapy. While PT has become mainstream and has established itself as a treatment option for many cancers, it is still an area of active research for various reasons: the advanced dose shaping capabilities of PT cause susceptibility to uncertainties, the high degrees of freedom in dose delivery offer room for further improvements, the limited experience and understanding of optimizing pencil beam scanning, and the biological effect difference compared to photon radiation. In addition to these challenges and opportunities currently being investigated, there is an economic aspect because PT treatments are, on average, still more expensive compared to conventional photon based treatment options. This roadmap highlights the current state and future direction in PT categorized into four different themes, ‘improving efficiency’, ‘improving planning and delivery’, ‘improving imaging’, and ‘improving patient selection’.