Clinical Issues in Proton Radiotherapy



Clinical Issues in Proton Radiotherapy


Thomas F. DeLaney



The unequivocal evidence that higher radiation doses to the tumor result in higher rates of local tumor control in animals1 and patients2 and that higher doses to normal tissues increase the risk for complications3 have spurred technical developments in radiation oncology to optimize therapeutic ratio by maximizing tumor dose and minimizing normal tissue radiation. The physical properties of protons described in the preceding chapters made them a good choice for studies in the clinic designed to improve the therapeutic ratio. Exploratory studies outlined in Chapters 1 and 2 established an estimate of the proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 that appeared to be clinically appropriate and that has been adopted in most clinics.4 The pioneering clinical studies performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)-Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory (HCL) established that protons could be used to deliver higher and more highly localized doses to tumors in patients than had been technically possible with photons.5 The tumors selected for initial study, choroidal melanoma, base of skull and cervical spine chordomas and chondrosarcomas, and prostate cancers, were chosen because local control at conventional photon doses were suboptimal and because these anatomic sites could be reached with the 160-MeV, fixed horizontal beam available at the HCL.6

The excellent results achieved in these tumors were duplicated in other facilities around the world, often by clinicians and physicists who had the opportunity to visit or spend fellowship time at the MGH-HCL.7,8 Indeed, this sophisticated technology was not only transferable but its adoption in new facilities often yielded new technologic and clinical advances.9 The opening of multiple new facilities is expected to accelerate the rate of technologic advance in the field.

The Particle Therapy Cooperative Group (PTCOG) was formed in the 1980s10 to share ideas and advance the field, with one of its goals to develop hospital-based proton facilities that could treat tumors anywhere in the body with rotational gantries analogous to those which were standard on clinical photon linear accelerators. This goal was achieved with the opening of the hospital-based facility at Loma Linda University in 1990; multiple facilities since then that have opened around the world. A list of the 28 operational charged particle facilities (as of December 2006) and the number of patients treated by each is shown in Table 9.1. Twenty-five of these facilities are currently treating with protons, two (NIRS in Chiba, Japan and Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung [GSI] in Darmstadt, Germany) are treating with carbon ions, and one (in Hyogo, Japan) is using both. There are now many other proton facilities in various states of planning, construction, and commissioning. These new hospital-based facilities with rotational gantries have greatly expanded the anatomic sites and clinical scenarios for which proton delivery is now technically possible. This chapter will address some of the clinically relevant issues that will be important for optimizing the use of protons in these facilities. Chapter 10 will address similar issues for the use of heavier charged particles. Note that the clinical results and proton and heavier charged particle therapy techniques for individual anatomic sites and tumor types will be addressed in detail in Chapters 11-22.









TABLE 9.1 LISTING OF OPERATIONAL CHARGED PARTICLE FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD AS OF DECEMBER 2006







































































































































































































































































































Who, Where


Country


Particle


Maximum
Clinical
Energy (MeV)


Beam
Direction


Start of
Treatment


Total
Patients
Treated


Date of
Patient Total


Harvard, Boston


MA., USA


p


160


Horiz.


1961


9,116


Apr-02a


ITEP, Moscow


Russia


p


200


Horiz.


1969


3,858


Dec-05


St. Petersburg


Russia


p


1,000


Horiz.


1975


1,320


Oct-06


Chiba


Japan


p


70


Vertical


1979


145


Apr-02a


PMRC 1, Tsukuba


Japan


p


230


Horiz., vertical


1983


700


July-00a


PSI, Villigen


Switzerland


p


72


Horiz.


1984


4,604


Nov-06


Dubna


Russia


p


200b


Horiz.


1999


318


July-06


Uppsala


Sweden


p


200


Horiz.


1989


520


Dec-04


Clatterbridge


England


p


62


Horiz.


1989


1,584


Dec-06


Loma Linda


CA., USA


p


250


Gantry, horiz.


1990


11,414


Nov-06


Nice


France


p


65


Horiz.


1991


3,129


Sep-06


Orsay


France


p


200


Horiz.


1991


3,766


Dec-06


iThemba Labs


South Africa


p


200


Horiz.


1993


486


Dec-06


MPRI


IN., USA


p


200


Horiz.


1993


220


Sep-06


UCSF


CA., USA


p


60


Horiz.


1994


632


June-04


HIMAC, Chiba


Japan


ion


800/u


Horiz., vertical


1994


2,867


Aug-06


TRIUMF, Vancouver


Canada


p


72


Horiz.


1995


111


Sep-06


PSI, Villigen


Switzerland


pc


230b


Gantry


1996


262


July-06


G.S.I. Darmstadt


Germany


ionc


430/u


Horiz.


1997


316


July-06


HMI, Berlin


Germany


p


72


Horiz.


1998


829


Dec-06


NCC, Kashiwa


Japan


p


235


Gantry


1998


462


Nov-06


HIBMC, Hyogo


Japan


p


230


Gantry


2001


1,099


Sep-06


HIBMC, Hyogo


Japan


Ion


320


Horiz., vertical


2002


131


Sep-06


PMRC 2, Tsukuba


Japan


p


250b


Gantry


2001


930


July-06


FHBPTC, MGH Boston


USA


p


235


Gantry, horiz.


2001


2,080


Oct-06


INFN-LNS, Catania


Italy


p


60


Horiz.


2002


114


Oct-06


Shizuoka


Japan


p


235


Gantry, horiz.


2003


410


Nov-06


Wakasa WERC, Tsuruga


Japan


p


200


Horiz., vertical


2002


33


Aug-06


WPTC, Zibo


China


p


230


Gantry, horiz.


2004


270


July-06


MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX


USA


p


250


Gantry, horiz.


2006


114


Dec-06


FPTI, Jacksonville, FL


USA


p


230


Gantry, horiz.


2006


15


Dec-06


a Closed down and replaced by another facility.

b Degraded beam.

c Beam scanning: all others have passively scattered beams. p, proton; Horiz, horizontal beam.


Modified from Particle Therapy Cooperative Group. website, http://ptcog.web.psi.ch/ptcentres.html, 2006.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Aug 27, 2016 | Posted by in GENERAL RADIOLOGY | Comments Off on Clinical Issues in Proton Radiotherapy

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access