ArticleCancers2024
A Fast 3D Range-Modulator Delivery Approach: Validation of the FLUKA Model on a Varian ProBeam System Including a Robustness Analysis.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A 3D range-modulator (RM), optimized for a single energy and a specific target shape, is a promising and viable solution for the ultra-fast dose delivery in particle therapy. The aim of this work was to investigate the impact of potential beam and modulator misalignments on the dose distribution. Moreover, the FLUKA Monte Carlo model, capable of simulating 3D RMs, was adjusted and validated for the 250 MeV single-energy proton irradiation from a Varian ProBeam system. A 3D RM was designed for a cube target shape rotated 45° around two axes using a Varian-internal research version of the Eclipse treatment planning software, and the resulting dose distribution was simulated in a water phantom. Deviations from the ideal alignment were introduced, and the dose distributions from the modified simulations were compared to the original unmodified one. Finally, the FLUKA model and the workflow were validated with base-line data measurements and dose measurements of the manufactured modulator prototype at the HollandPTC facility in Delft. The adjusted FLUKA model, optimized particularly in the scope of a single-energy FLASH irradiation with a PMMA pre-absorber, demonstrated very good agreement with the measured dose distribution resulting from the 3D RM. Dose deviations resulting from modulator-beam axis misalignments depend on the specific 3D RM and its shape, pin aspect ratio, rotation angle, rotation point, etc. A minor modulator shift was found to be more relevant for the distal dose distribution than for the spread-out Bragg Peak (SOBP) homogeneity. On the other hand, a modulator tilt (rotation away from the beam axis) substantially affected not only the depth dose profile, transforming a flat SOBP into a broad, Gaussian-like distribution with increasing rotation angle, but also shifted the lateral dose distribution considerably. This work strives to increase awareness and highlight potential pitfalls as the 3D RM method progresses from a purely research concept to pre-clinical studies and human trials. Ensuring that gantry rotation and the combined weight of RM, PMMA, and aperture do not introduce alignment issues is critical. Given all the other range and positioning uncertainties, etc., not related to the modulator, the RM must be aligned with an accuracy below 1° in order to preserve a clinically acceptable total uncertainty budget. Careful consideration of critical parameters like the pin aspect ratio and possibly a novel robust modulator geometry optimization are potential additional strategies to mitigate the impact of positioning on the resulting dose. Finally, even the rotated cube 3D modulator with high aspect ratio pin structures (~80 mm height to 3 mm pin base width) was found to be relatively robust against a slight misalignment of 0.5° rotation or a 1.5 mm shift in one dimension perpendicular to the beam axis. Given a reliable positioning and QA concept, the additional uncertainties introduced by the 3D RM can be successfully managed adopting the concept into the clinical routine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.