skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: 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

Journal Article · · International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics

Purpose: 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. Methods and Materials: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

OSTI ID:
22648633
Journal Information:
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 95, Issue 1; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0360-3016
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Similar Records

SU-E-T-130: Are Proton Gantries Needed? An Analysis of 4332 Patient Proton Gantry Treatment Plans From the Past 10 Years
Journal Article · Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015 · Medical Physics · OSTI ID:22648633

SU-F-T-207: Does the Greater Flexibility of Pencil Beam Scanning Reduce the Need for a Proton Gantry?
Journal Article · Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016 · Medical Physics · OSTI ID:22648633

Indications of Carbon Ion Therapy at CNAO
Journal Article · Tue Mar 10 00:00:00 EDT 2009 · AIP Conference Proceedings · OSTI ID:22648633