SU-E-T-506: Dosimetric Study for Shallow-Seated Tumor Using Passive/active Scanning Proton Beam

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (6Part18) ◽  
pp. 3821-3822
Author(s):  
C Toramatsu ◽  
T Matsuura ◽  
H Nihongi ◽  
S Takao ◽  
N Miyamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proton Beam ◽  
Dosimetric Study ◽  
Active Scanning

Proton Beam Therapy Reduces Dose to Pelvic Bone Marrow Compared With IMRT: A Dosimetric Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. S848 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.V. Yajnik ◽  
M. Siddiqui ◽  
M. Gao ◽  
M. Pankuch ◽  
J. Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Proton Beam ◽  
Proton Beam Therapy ◽  
Pelvic Bone ◽  
Dosimetric Study

Preliminary results, obtained by using a proton beam, for an active scanning system to installed on the KHIMA

2015 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Hyeuk Kim ◽  
Hwa-Ryun Lee ◽  
Sea Duk Jang ◽  
Hyunyong Kim ◽  
Garam Hahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proton Beam ◽  
Scanning System ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Active Scanning

scholarly journals RONC-15. CYSTIC DYNAMIC EVALUATION AND EARLY LATE TOXICITY IN TWO PEDIATRIC LOW GRADE GLIOMAS TREATED WITH ACTIVE SCANNING PROTON BEAM RADIOTHERAPY

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. i177-i177
Author(s):  
Barbara Rombi ◽  
Mino Zucchelli ◽  
Sabina Vennarini ◽  
Mirko Lipparini ◽  
Soraia Micò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proton Beam ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Dynamic Evaluation ◽  
Proton Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Low Grade Gliomas ◽  
Active Scanning ◽  
Early Late

Early Experience of the World’s First Single-Room Gantry Mounted Active Scanning Proton Therapy System at an Integrated Cancer Center

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Forsthoefel ◽  
Elizabeth Ballew ◽  
Keith R. Unger ◽  
Peter H. Ahn ◽  
Sonali Rudra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proton Beam ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Early Experience ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Proton Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Single Room ◽  
Active Scanning ◽  
Insurance Approval

Abstract Introduction Review the early experience with a single-room gantry mounted active scanning proton therapy system implemented in the modern era. Materials and Methods All patients treated with proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved patient registry. Proton beam radiotherapy was delivered with a 250 MeV gantry mounted synchrocyclotron in a single-room integrated facility within the pre-existing cancer center. Demographic data, cancer diagnoses, treatment technique, and geographic patterns were obtained for all patients. Treatment plans were evaluated for mixed modality therapy. Insurance approval data was collected for all patients treated with PBT. Results A total of 132 patients were treated with PBT between March 2018 and June 2019. The most common oncologic subsites treated included the central nervous system (22%), gastrointestinal tract (20%), and genitourinary tract (20%). The most common histologies treated included prostate adenocarcinoma (19%), non-small cell lung cancer (10%), primary CNS gliomas (8%), and esophageal cancer (8%). Rationale for PBT treatment included limitation of dose to adjacent critical organs at risk (67%), reirradiation (19%), and patient comorbidities (11%). Patients received at least one x-ray fraction delivered as prescribed (36%) or less commonly due to unplanned machine downtime (34%). Concurrent systemic therapy was administered to 57 patients (43%). Twenty-six patients (20%) were initially denied insurance coverage and required peer-to-peers (65%), written appeals (12%), secondary insurance approval (12%), and comparison x-ray to proton plans (8%) for subsequent approval. Proton beam radiotherapy approval required a median of 17 days from insurance submission. Conclusion Incorporation of PBT into our existing cancer center allowed for multidisciplinary oncologic treatment of a diverse population of patients. Insurance coverage for PBT presents as a significant hurdle and improvements are needed to provide more timely access to necessary oncologic care.

scholarly journals Thymic malignancies treated with active scanning proton beam radiation and Monte Carlo planning: early clinical experience

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 649-652
Author(s):  
Mary McGunigal ◽  
Marc Margolis ◽  
Matthew Forsthoefel ◽  
Tanvee Singh ◽  
Katherine Amarell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Proton Beam ◽  
Clinical Experience ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Early Clinical Experience ◽  
Proton Beam Radiation ◽  
Active Scanning

scholarly journals Dosimetric Comparison of Passive Scattering and Active Scanning Proton Therapy Techniques Using GATE Simulation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Asadi ◽  
Azadeh Akhavanallaf ◽  
Seyed Abolfazl Hosseini ◽  
Naser Vosoughi ◽  
Habib Zaidi
Keyword(s):  
Proton Beam ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Dose Volume Histogram ◽  
Dose Ratio ◽  
Entrance Dose ◽  
Dose Volume ◽  
Active Scanning ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Beam Delivery ◽  
Passive Scattering

Abstract Background: In this study, two proton beam delivery designs, i.e. passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) and pencil beam scanning (PBS), were quantitatively compared in terms of dosimetric indices. The GATE Monte Carlo (MC) particle transport code was used to simulate the proton beam system; and the developed simulation engines were benchmarked with respect to the experimental measurements.Method: A water phantom was used to simulate system energy parameters using a set of depth-dose data in the energy range of 120-235 MeV. To compare the performance of PSPT against PBS, multiple dosimetric parameters including Bragg peak width (BPW50), peak position, range, peak-to-entrance dose ratio, and dose volume histogram have been analyzed under the same conditions. Furthermore, the clinical test cases introduced by AAPM TG-119 were simulated in both beam delivery modes to compare the relevant clinical values obtained from Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) analysis. Results: The parametric comparison in the water phantom between the two techniques revealed that the value of peak-to-entrance dose ratio in PSPT is considerably higher than that from PBS by a factor of 8%. In addition, the BPW50 in PSPT was increased by a factor of 7% compared to the corresponding value obtained from PBS model. TG-119 phantom simulations showed that the difference of PTV mean dose between PBS and PSPT techniques are up to 1.8 % while the difference of max dose to organ at risks (OARs) exceeds 50%. Conclusion: The results demonstrated that the active scanning proton therapy systems was superior in adapting to the target volume, better dose painting, and lower out-of-field dose compared to passive scattering design.

Control of proton beam divergence in intense-laser foil-plasma interaction

2006 ◽  
Vol 133 ◽  
pp. 549-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kawata ◽  
R. Sonobe ◽  
S. Miyazaki ◽  
K. Sakai ◽  
T. Kikuchi
Keyword(s):  
Proton Beam ◽  
Beam Divergence ◽  
Intense Laser ◽  
Plasma Interaction
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document