Back to Authors

Unkelbach, Jan

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4275-990X

Mayo Clinic

University Hospital Zurich

Citations 2

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’.
Robust radiotherapy planning
Unkelbach, Jan , Alber, M., Bangert, Mark, Bokrantz, Rasmus, Chan, Timothy C. Y. , Deasy, Joseph O. , Fredriksson, Albin , Gorissen, Bram L. , Herk, Marcel van , Liu, Wei , Mahmoudzadeh, Houra , Nohadani, Omid , Siebers, Jeffrey V. , Xu, Huijun , Witte, Marnix , Xu, Huijun , Liu, Wei

Physics in Medicine & Biology | October 5, 2018 | Volume: 63 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 22TR02

10.1088/1361-6560/aae659 Get It

Abstract Motion and uncertainty in radiotherapy is traditionally handled via margins. The clinical target volume (CTV) is expanded to a larger planning target volume (PTV), which is irradiated to the prescribed dose. However, the PTV concept has several limitations, especially in proton therapy. Therefore, robust and probabilistic optimization methods have been developed that directly incorporate motion and uncertainty into treatment plan optimization for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Thereby, the explicit definition of a PTV becomes obsolete and treatment plan optimization is directly based on the CTV. Initial work focused on random and systematic setup errors in IMRT. Later, inter-fraction prostate motion and intra-fraction lung motion became a research focus. Over the past ten years, IMPT has emerged as a new application for robust planning methods. In proton therapy, range or setup errors may lead to dose degradation and misalignment of dose contributions from different beams – a problem that cannot generally be addressed by margins. Therefore, IMPT has led to the first implementations of robust planning methods in commercial planning systems, making these methods available for clinical use. This paper first summarizes the limitations of the PTV concept. Subsequently, robust optimization methods are introduced and their applications in IMRT and IMPT planning are reviewed.