Bussière Mark R, Adams Judith A
Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 33 Fruit Street, Boston MA 02114, USA.
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2003 Oct;2(5):389-99. doi: 10.1177/153303460300200504.
Clinical results from various trials have demonstrated the viability of protons in radiation therapy and radiosurgery. This has motivated a few large medical centers to design and build expensive hospital based proton facilities based proton facilities (current cost estimates for a proton facility is around 100 million US dollars). Until this development proton therapy was done using retrofitted equipment originally designed for nuclear experiments. There are presently only three active proton therapy centers in the United States, 22 worldwide. However, more centers are under construction and being proposed in the US and abroad. The important difference between proton and x-ray therapy is in the dose distribution. X-rays deposit most of their dose at shallow depths of a few centimeters with a gradual decay with depth in the patient. Protons deliver most of their dose in the Bragg peak, which can be delivered at most clinically required depths followed by a sharp fall-off. This sharp falloff makes protons sensitive to variations in treatment depths within patients. Treatment planning incorporates all the knowledge of protons into a process, which allows patients to be treated accurately and reliably. This process includes patient immobilization, imaging, targeting, and modeling of planned dose distributions. Although the principles are similar to x-ray therapy some significant differences exist in the planning process, which described in this paper. Target dose conformality has recently taken on much momentum with the advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with photon beams. Proton treatments provide a viable alternative to IMRT because they are inherently conformal avoiding normal tissue while irradiating the intended targets. Proton therapy will soon bring conformality to a new high with the development of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Future challenges include keeping the cost down, increasing access to conventional proton therapy as well as the clinical implementation of IMPT. Computing advances are making Monte Carlo techniques more accessible to treatment planning for all modalities including proton therapy. This technique will allow complex delivery configurations to be properly modeled in a clinical setting.
各项试验的临床结果已证明质子在放射治疗和放射外科中的可行性。这促使一些大型医疗中心设计并建造昂贵的基于医院的质子设施(目前质子设施的成本估计约为1亿美元)。在此之前,质子治疗是使用最初为核实验设计的改装设备进行的。目前美国仅有三个活跃的质子治疗中心,全球有22个。然而,美国国内外有更多的中心正在建设或计划建设。质子治疗和X射线治疗的重要区别在于剂量分布。X射线在几厘米的浅深度沉积大部分剂量,随着在患者体内深度的增加而逐渐衰减。质子在布拉格峰处释放大部分剂量,该剂量可以在大多数临床所需深度释放,随后急剧下降。这种急剧下降使质子对患者体内治疗深度的变化敏感。治疗计划将所有关于质子的知识纳入一个过程,从而能够准确可靠地治疗患者。这个过程包括患者固定、成像、靶向以及计划剂量分布的建模。尽管其原理与X射线治疗相似,但在计划过程中存在一些显著差异,本文对此进行了描述。随着光子束调强放射治疗(IMRT)的出现,靶区剂量适形性最近受到了很大关注。质子治疗为IMRT提供了一种可行的替代方案,因为它们本质上具有适形性,在照射目标时可避免正常组织。随着调强质子治疗(IMPT)的发展,质子治疗将很快把适形性提升到一个新高度。未来的挑战包括降低成本、增加常规质子治疗的可及性以及IMPT的临床应用。计算技术的进步使蒙特卡罗技术在包括质子治疗在内的所有治疗方式的治疗计划中更容易应用。这种技术将使复杂的传输配置在临床环境中得到正确建模。