Reassessment of the Necessity of the Proton Gantry: Analysis of Beam Orientations From 4332 Treatments at the Massachusetts General Hospital Proton Center Over the Past 10 Years.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 26611874.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.033.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To retrospectively analyze the beam approaches used in gantry-based proton treatments, and to reassess the practical advantages of the gantry, compared with beam approaches that are achievable without a gantry, in the context of present-day technology. We reviewed the proton therapy plans of 4332 patients treated on gantries at our hospital, delivered by the double scattering technique (n=4228) and, more recently, pencil beam scanning (PBS) (n=104). Beam approaches, relative to the patient frame, were analyzed individually to identify cases that could be treated without a gantry. Three treatment configurations were considered, with the patient in lying position, sitting position, or both. The FIXED geometry includes a fixed horizontal portal. The BEND geometry enables a limited vertical inflection of the beam by up to 20°. The MOVE geometry allows for flexibility of the patient head and body setup. The percentage of patients with head and neck tumors that could be treated without a gantry using double scattering was 44% in FIXED, 70% in 20° BEND, and 100% in 90° MOVE. For torso regions, 99% of patients could be treated in 20° BEND. Of 104 PBS treatments, all but 1 could be reproduced with FIXED geometry. The only exception would require a 10° BEND capability. Note here that the PBS treatments were applied to select anatomic sites, including only 2 patients with skull-base tumors. The majority of practical beam approaches can be realized with gantry-less delivery, aided by limited beam bending and patient movements. Practical limitations of the MOVE geometry, and treatments requiring a combination of lying and sitting positions, may lower the percentage of head and neck patients who could be treated without a gantry. Further investigation into planning, immobilization, and imaging is needed to remove the practical limitations and to facilitate proton treatment without a gantry.
Medical subject headings
- Head and Neck Neoplasms
- Proton Therapy