The use of radiation therapy to treat cancer is well known. Typically, radiation therapy involves directing a beam of high energy proton, photon, ion, or electron radiation into a target or volume in a treatment target of unhealthy tissue (e.g., a tumor or lesion).
Radiation therapy using proton beams has a significant advantage relative to the use of other types of beams. A proton beam reaches a depth in tissue that depends on the energy of the beam, and releases most of its energy (delivers most of its dose) at that depth. The region of a depth-dose curve where most of the energy is released is referred to as the Bragg peak of the beam.
Before a patient is treated with radiation, a treatment plan specific to that patient is developed. The plan defines various aspects of the radiation therapy using simulations and optimizations that may be based on past experiences. In general, the purpose of the treatment plan is to deliver sufficient radiation to unhealthy tissue while minimizing exposure of surrounding healthy tissue to that radiation.
One radiation therapy technique is known as pencil beam scanning (PBS), also known as spot scanning. In PBS, a small and focused pencil beam of ionizing radiation is directed to specific locations (spots) in a treatment target prescribed by the treatment plan. The prescribed spot positions are typically arranged in a fixed (raster) pattern for each energy layer of the treatment field, and the pencil beam is delivered on a fixed scanning path within an energy layer. By superposition of several layers of different energies, the Bragg peaks of the pencil beams overlap to uniformly deliver the prescribed dose at a prescribed dose rate across each treatment field in the treatment target and up to the edges of the target.
A precise calculation of the number of spots and their placement (location and distribution) is critical. The goal is to determine a spot placement that: 1) conforms to the outline of the treatment target, to improve the lateral penumbra and spare healthy tissue outside the treatment target from exposure to radiation beyond what is necessary to treat the unhealthy tissue; and 2) is uniform inside the treatment target, to avoid dose variations (dose inhomogeneity) inside the treatment target so that the prescribed dose is delivered to all parts of the target.
The interest in the biological effects of ultra-high dose rate irradiation has grown significantly in the last half-decade, starting with studies showing that significant sparing of normal tissue with isoeffective tumor growth delay was demonstrated through irradiation at dose rates on the order of 40 Gray (Gy) per second. That sparing effect, which is known as the FLASH effect, has resulted in a large number of radiobiology experiments, most of which have been performed using broad beams of electrons or protons (bbFLASH). In these experiments, the dose is pulsed in the time domain, with delivery of the entire field happening simultaneously within each pulse. This mode of dose delivery has two characteristic dose rates. The first is the instantaneous dose rate, which is the dose per pulse divided by the pulse duration. The second is the average dose rate, which is the total dose divided by the entire delivery duration.
PBS introduces additional considerations for defining dose rate because, as mentioned above, the dose at each point in the treatment field is the sum of contributions from the dose delivered asynchronously to multiple spots that are close enough to that point to contribute to the dose at that point. While each spot will have instantaneous and average dose rates analogous to those discussed above for broad beams, the dose rate at any voxel within a PBS field is more difficult to characterize.
For pencil beam scanning (PBS) (spot scanning) in general and PBS FLASH radiotherapy in particular, it is important to consider the scanning time. Without considering the scanning time, the temporal separation between spots delivering significant dose to a given location is not accounted for, and as a result the dose rate estimate for an array of spots will be the same regardless of the time period required to accumulate the total dose.
Embodiments according to the present invention provide methods and systems that consider dose accumulation in a local region or sub-volume (e.g., a voxel) as a function of time. More specifically, in embodiments, methods are disclosed for (i) calculating the dose rate of voxels within a particle beam (e.g., proton beam) treatment field delivered using PBS (in other words, the dose rate distribution of a PBS treatment field), and (ii) reporting a representative dose rate for the PBS treatment field.
The disclosed methods take into account the unique spatiotemporal delivery patterns of PBS FLASH radiotherapy. This provides a framework for determining and describing PBS dose rate in a precise and consistent manner, a necessary requirement for cross-investigational comparison of FLASH results. These methods can be used for radiation treatment planning as well as for advancing the research and application of PBS FLASH radiotherapy.
These and other objects and advantages of embodiments according to the present invention will be recognized by one skilled in the art after having read the following detailed description, which are illustrated in the various drawing figures.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts that are further described below in the detailed description that follows. This summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form a part of this specification and in which like numerals depict like elements, illustrate embodiments of the present disclosure and, together with the detailed description, serve to explain the principles of the disclosure. The drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale.
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Reference will now be made in detail to the various embodiments of the present disclosure, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. While described in conjunction with these embodiments, it will be understood that they are not intended to limit the disclosure to these embodiments. On the contrary, the disclosure is intended to cover alternatives, modifications and equivalents, which may be included within the spirit and scope of the disclosure as defined by the appended claims. Furthermore, in the following detailed description of the present disclosure, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present disclosure. However, it will be understood that the present disclosure may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the present disclosure.
Some portions of the detailed descriptions that follow are presented in terms of procedures, logic blocks, processing, and other symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. In the present application, a procedure, logic block, process, or the like, is conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps or instructions leading to a desired result. The steps are those utilizing physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, although not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated in a computer system. It has proven convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as transactions, bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, samples, pixels, or the like.
It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussions, it is appreciated that throughout the present disclosure, discussions utilizing terms such as “accessing,” “determining,” “using,” “storing,” “performing,” “associating,” or the like, refer to actions and processes (e.g., the flowchart of
The discussion to follow may include terms such as “dose,” “dose rate,” “energy,” etc. Unless otherwise noted, a value is associated with each such term. For example, a dose has a value and can have different values. For simplicity, the term “dose” may refer to a value of a dose, for example, unless otherwise noted or apparent from the discussion.
Portions of the detailed description that follows are presented and discussed in terms of methods. Although steps and sequencing thereof are disclosed in figures herein (e.g.,
Embodiments described herein may be discussed in the general context of computer-executable instructions residing on some form of computer-readable storage medium, such as program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices. By way of example, and not limitation, computer-readable storage media may comprise non-transitory computer storage media and communication media. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The functionality of the program modules may be combined or distributed as desired in various embodiments.
Computer storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, random access memory, read only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, compact disk ROM (CD-ROM), digital versatile disks (DVDs) or other optical or magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to store the desired information and that can accessed to retrieve that information.
Communication media can embody computer-executable instructions, data structures, and program modules, and includes any information delivery media. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, radio frequency (RF), infrared and other wireless media. Combinations of any of the above can also be included within the scope of computer-readable media.
The computer system 100 also includes input device(s) 124 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 126 such as a display device, speakers, printer, etc., are also included. A display device may be, for example, a cathode ray tube display, a light-emitting diode display, or a liquid crystal display.
In the example of
A proposed radiation treatment plan is defined (e.g., using the treatment planning system 150 of
A control system (not shown) implemented with a computer system like the computer system of 100 can be used to implement the prescribed radiation treatment plan. The control system can control parameters of a beam-generating system, a nozzle, and a patient support device, including parameters such as the energy, intensity, direction, size, and/or shape of the beam, according to data it receives and according to the prescribed radiation treatment plan.
During treatment, in an example embodiment, a particle beam enters the nozzle, which includes one or more components that affect (e.g., decrease, modulate) the energy of the beam, to control the dose delivered by the beam and/or to control the depth versus dose curve of the beam, depending on the type of beam. For example, for a proton beam or an ion beam that has a Bragg peak, the nozzle can control the location of the Bragg peak in the treatment target.
In embodiments according to the invention, the nozzle emits particles in a spot scanning beam (also referred to as a pencil beam). The nozzle is mounted on a moveable gantry so that the beam can be delivered from different directions (angles) relative to a patient (treatment target) on the patient support device, and the position of the patient support device relative to the beam may also be changed. The target area is irradiated with a raster scan by the spot scanning beam. The increased flexibility made available through spot scanning greatly improves the precision of the dose delivered to a treatment, to maximize dose delivery to unhealthy tissue and minimize damage to healthy tissue.
The beam can deliver a relatively high dose rate (a relatively high dose in a relatively short period of time). For example, the beam can deliver at least 40 Gray (Gy) in less than one second, and may deliver as much as 120 Gy per second or more.
In radiation therapy techniques in which the intensity of the particle beam is either constant or modulated across the field of delivery, such as in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity modulated particle therapy (IMPT), beam intensity is varied across each treatment region (volume in a treatment target) in a patient. Depending on the treatment modality, the degrees of freedom available for intensity modulation include beam shaping (collimation and cross-section), beam weighting (spot scanning), spot spacing (delivery pattern), spot radius (interaction range), scanning speed, beam delivery time, number of energy layers, and angle of incidence (which may be referred to as beam geometry). These degrees of freedom lead to an effectively infinite number of potential treatment plans, and therefore consistently and efficiently generating and evaluating high-quality treatment plans is beyond the capability of a human and relies on the use of a computer system, particularly considering the time constraints associated with the use of radiation therapy to treat ailments like cancer, as well as the large number of patients that are undergoing or need to undergo radiation therapy during any given time period. For IMPT, steep dose gradients are often used at the target border and field edges to enhance dose conformity.
Embodiments according to the invention contribute to improved radiation treatment planning and the treatment itself. Treatment plans that are generated considering the present disclosure are superior for sparing healthy tissue from radiation in comparison to conventional techniques by optimizing the balance between the dose rate delivered to unhealthy tissue (e.g., a tumor) in a volume in a treatment target and the dose rate delivered to surrounding healthy tissue. Consequently, treatment planning, while still a complex task, can be improved relative to conventional treatment planning.
In summary, embodiments according to this disclosure contribute to generating and implementing treatment plans that are the most effective (relative to other plans) and with the least (or most acceptable) side effects (e.g., a lower dose rate outside of the region being treated). Thus, embodiments according to the invention can improve the field of radiation treatment planning specifically and the field of radiation therapy in general.
In addition to radiation therapy techniques such as IMRT and IMPT, embodiments according to the invention can be used in spatially fractionated radiation therapy including high-dose spatially fractionated grid radiation therapy, minibeam radiation therapy, and microbeam radiation therapy.
Defining Dose Rate for Pencil Beam Scanning
Embodiments according to the present invention provide methods and systems that consider dose accumulation in a local region or sub-volume (e.g., a voxel) as a function of time. More specifically, in embodiments, methods are disclosed for (i) calculating the dose rate of voxels within a particle beam (e.g., proton beam) treatment field delivered using pencil beam scanning (PBS), also known as spot scanning, and (ii) reporting a representative dose rate for the PBS treatment field. These methods and related operations can be performed using the TPS 150 of
Embodiments according to the present invention contribute to the development of improved methods that can be used for generating radiation treatment plans for radiation therapy (RT) including FLASH RT. For FLASH RT, dose rates of at least 40 Gy in less than one second, and as much as 120 Gy per second or more, may be used.
The disclosed methods take into account the unique spatiotemporal delivery patterns of PBS FLASH radiotherapy. This provides a framework for determining and describing PBS dose rate in a precise and consistent manner, a necessary requirement for cross-investigational comparison of FLASH results. Thus, these methods also can advance the research and application of PBS FLASH radiotherapy and thereby contribute to improved radiation treatment planning.
The examples of
In embodiments, generally speaking, the dose rate at each voxel of a PBS radiation field is approximated as the quotient of the voxel's dose and the voxel's “effective irradiation time.” As used herein, each voxel's effective irradiation time starts when the cumulative dose at the voxel rises above a first threshold dose value, and stops when the cumulative dose at the voxel reaches a second threshold dose value. In an embodiment, the second threshold dose value is the total dose at the voxel minus the first threshold dose value. The above quotient yields a distribution of dose rates for the voxels within the PBS treatment field.
To determine and report a representative dose rate for the PBS treatment field, a measure of the dose rate distribution that is above a specified dose rate is determined. In an embodiment, a user-selectable parameter p is used to determine the pth percentile of the dose rate distribution, such that (100−p) percent of the treatment field is above the specified dose rate. For example, if p is five, then 95 percent of the treatment field is above a specified dose rate.
Reference is now made to
In
Continuing with reference to
D({right arrow over (x)})=d({right arrow over (x)},tf),
with the corresponding average or “field” dose rate computed as:
However, as shown in
d({right arrow over (x)},t0)=d†, and
d({right arrow over (x)},t1)=D({right arrow over (x)})−d†.
In other words, in an embodiment, the effective irradiation time T({right arrow over (x)}) starts at time t0 when the accumulated dose at the location {right arrow over (x)} exceeds a first threshold dose value of d†, and ends at time t1 when the accumulated dose at the location {right arrow over (e)} exceeds a second threshold dose value; that is, the effective irradiation time ends when the accumulated dose at the location {right arrow over (x)} is within d† of the total dose D({right arrow over (x)}).
In the example of
The first notable observation is the dissimilarity of the dose and PBS dose rate distributions. In the PBS dose rate distribution (
The discrete behavior can be understood as follows. Practically, the effective irradiation time T({right arrow over (x)}) reflects the time required to traverse the scanning path between the spots delivered at times t0 and t1, as illustrated in
Referring to the DRVH in
To illustrate the fundamental characteristics of the PBS dose rate in 3D, the dose rate {dot over (D)}PBS({right arrow over (x)}) distribution is calculated for a 250 MeV monoenergetic 10×10 cm2 proton field delivering 10 Gy to at the isocenter located at a depth of 10 cm in a water phantom with an in-air spot sigma of approximately 3.3 mm. For simplicity, but without loss of generality, a quasi-static spot delivery is assumed, in which the dose is deposited to points on a five mm square grid assuming two ms spot delivery time with a scanning speed of 10 mm per second. These parameters are nominally representative of modern scanning systems. Based on these values, the total dose delivery plus beam traversal time is 2.5 ms per spot, for a total field delivery time of 1000 ms, and a dose rate {dot over (D)}field of 10 Gy per second.
For a prescribed dose of 10 Gy, a reasonable threshold value of 0.1 Gy is chosen for d†. The dose rate {dot over (D)}PBS({right arrow over (x)}) distribution was calculated with a grid spacing of 2.5 mm in all dimensions.
Results of the above calculation are shown in
An apparent feature is the decrease in dose rate with depth, which is displayed quantitatively in
The decrease in dose rate with depth can be modulated by the choice of the threshold d†.
To summarize to this point, disclosed herein is a novel method to calculate the dose rate at each voxel of a scanned pencil beam, taking into account the relationship of dose accumulation and irradiation time at that voxel. The method can be applied in 2D and in 3D. While the discussion above is for an example of discrete spot delivery, it can be applied to continuous scanning so long as the dose d({right arrow over (x)}, t) is known, with the beam flux and scanning speed as input parameters. In addition, the example can be extended to PBS delivery using an extended Bragg peak or any other PBS-like dose delivery.
As described above, there is a user selectable parameter: the threshold value for accumulated dose d† that, when reached, starts the clock for measuring the effective irradiation time for a voxel. In embodiments, the same threshold value applies in ending the irradiation time, when the delivered dose comes within the total dose at the voxel minus the threshold value d†. In one of the above examples, a value of 0.1 Gy, or one percent of the prescribed dose of 10 Gy, is selected as the threshold. Selection of a different threshold value will affect the value of effective irradiation time and thereby affect the calculated value of dose rate. Specifically, a decrease in the threshold value will lead to an increase in effective irradiation time (relative to that of the total field in the limit as the threshold value d† approaches zero) and a decrease in calculated dose rate.
As there is a distribution in the calculated dose rate {dot over (D)}PBS({right arrow over (x)}) (e.g., see
The selection of values for threshold d† and the percentile p influences the reported PBS dose rate. To the extent that the FLASH phenomenon is dependent on dose rate, there may be implications in correlating the reported PBS dose rate with radiobiological observations. For instance, selecting the 5th percentile as the representative dose rate means that there is five percent of the treatment volume receiving less than the desired FLASH dose rate. Thus, it can be of importance for further study and understanding of FLASH to standardize the nomenclature for reporting the representative or effective dose rate of a PBS treatment field (e.g., a proton field). For a given region of interest (e.g., the 50 percent isodose line), nomenclature of the form {dot over (D)}d
While the operations in the flowchart of
In block 702 of
In block 704, a first threshold dose value and a second threshold dose value are accessed or determined. In an embodiment, the second threshold dose value is the difference between a total dose value for the voxel and the first threshold dose value.
In block 706, an amount of time between a time when an accumulated dose at the voxel reaches the first dose value threshold and a time when the accumulated dose at the voxel reaches the second threshold dose value is determined or measured.
In block 708, a value of dose rate at the voxel is determined using the dose value at the voxel, the first threshold dose value, the second threshold dose value, and the amount of time.
In block 710, the value of dose rate (from block 708) is stored in system memory 104 as a candidate parameter in a radiation treatment plan.
In block 712, a dose rate distribution at voxels in the treatment target is determined. A selected value (e.g., isoline) of the dose rate is accessed. A measure (e.g., percentile) of the dose rate distribution that exceeds the selected value is determined. The dose rate distribution can be determined as a function of depth in the treatment target.
In block 714, an effective dose rate value that is representative of the dose rate distribution is determined and stored in system memory 104. The value of the measure and the first threshold dose value (blocks 712 and 704, respectively) are associated with the effective dose rate value in the computer system memory.
In summary, embodiments according to the present invention consider the scanning time for PBS (spot scanning) in general and PBS FLASH radiotherapy in particular. By considering the scanning time, the temporal separation between dose deliveries to the spots is accounted for, and as a result the dose rate estimate for an array of spots accounts for the time period required to accumulate the dose.
Embodiments according to the present invention provide methods and systems that consider dose accumulation in a local region or sub-volume (e.g., a voxel) as a function of time. More specifically, in embodiments, methods are disclosed for (i) calculating the dose rate of voxels within a particle beam (e.g., proton beam) treatment field delivered using PBS (in other words, the dose rate distribution of a PBS treatment field), and (ii) reporting a representative dose rate for the PBS treatment field.
The disclosed methods take into account the unique spatiotemporal delivery patterns of PBS FLASH radiotherapy. This provides a framework for determining and describing PBS dose rate in a precise and consistent manner, a necessary requirement for cross-investigational comparison of FLASH results. These methods can be used for radiation treatment planning as well as for advancing the research and application of PBS FLASH radiotherapy.
In summary, embodiments according to the invention contribute to improved radiation treatment planning and the treatment itself. Treatment plans generated as described herein are superior for sparing normal tissue from radiation in comparison to conventional techniques by reducing, if not minimizing, the magnitude (and the integral in some cases) of the dose to normal tissue (outside the target) by design. When used with FLASH dose rates, management of patient motion is simplified because the doses are applied in a short period of time (e.g., less than a second).
In addition to radiation therapy techniques in which the intensity of the particle beam is either constant or modulated across the field of delivery, such as IMRT and IMPT, embodiments according to the invention can be used in spatially fractionated radiation therapy including high-dose spatially fractionated grid radiation therapy, minibeam radiation therapy, and microbeam radiation therapy. The techniques described herein may be useful for stereotactic radiosurgery as well as stereotactic body radiotherapy with single or multiple metastases.
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4163901 | Azam | Aug 1979 | A |
4914681 | Klingenbeck et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
5153900 | Nomikos et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5267294 | Kuroda | Nov 1993 | A |
5550378 | Skillicorn et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5610967 | Moorman et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5625663 | Swerdloff et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5682412 | Skillicorn et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5757885 | Yao et al. | May 1998 | A |
6198802 | Elliott et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6222544 | Tarr et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6234671 | Solomon et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6260005 | Yang et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6379380 | Satz | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6411675 | Llacer | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6445766 | Whitham | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6504899 | Pugachev et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6580940 | Gutman | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6993112 | Hesse | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7268358 | Ma et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7453983 | Schildkraut et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7515681 | Ebstein | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7522706 | Lu et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7560715 | Pedroni | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7590219 | Maurer, Jr. et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7616735 | Maciunas et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7623623 | Raanes et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7778691 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7807982 | Nishiuchi et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7831289 | Riker et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7835492 | Sahadevan | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7839973 | Nord | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7907699 | Long et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8009804 | Siljamaki | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8284898 | Ho et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8306184 | Chang et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8363784 | Sobering | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8401148 | Lu et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8406844 | Ruchala et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8559596 | Thomson et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8594800 | Butson | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8600003 | Zhou et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8613694 | Walsh | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8636636 | Shukla et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8644571 | Schulte et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8693629 | Sgouros | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8716663 | Brusasco et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8836332 | Shvartsman et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8847179 | Fujitaka et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8903471 | Heid | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8917813 | Maurer, Jr. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8948341 | Beckman | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8958864 | Amies et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8983573 | Carlone et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8986186 | Zhang et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8992404 | Graf et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8995608 | Zhou et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9018593 | Luechtenborg | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9018603 | Loo et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9033859 | Fieres et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9079027 | Agano et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9149656 | Tanabe | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9155908 | Meltsner et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9192786 | Yan | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9233260 | Slatkin et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9251302 | Brand | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9258876 | Cheung et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9283406 | Prieels | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9308391 | Liu et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9330879 | Lewellen et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9333374 | Iwata | May 2016 | B2 |
9468777 | Fallone et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9517358 | Velthuis et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9526918 | Kruip | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9545444 | Strober et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9583302 | Figueroa Saavedra et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9636381 | Basile | May 2017 | B2 |
9636525 | Sahadevan | May 2017 | B1 |
9649298 | Djonov et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
9656098 | Goer | May 2017 | B2 |
9694204 | Hardemark | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9776017 | Flynn et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9786054 | Taguchi et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9786093 | Svensson | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9786465 | Li et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9795806 | Matsuzaki et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9801594 | Boyd et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9844358 | Wiggers et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
9854662 | Mishin | Dec 2017 | B2 |
9884206 | Schulte | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9925382 | Carlton | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9931522 | Bharadwaj et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
9962562 | Fahrig et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
9974977 | Lachaine et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
9987502 | Gattiker et al. | Jun 2018 | B1 |
10007961 | Grudzinski et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10016623 | Claereboudt | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10022564 | Thieme et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10071264 | Liger | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10080912 | Kwak et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10092774 | Vanderstraten et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
10183179 | Smith et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10188875 | Kwak et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10206871 | Lin et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10212800 | Agustsson et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10232193 | Iseki | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10258810 | Zwart et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10272264 | Ollila et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10279196 | West et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10293184 | Pishdad et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10307614 | Schnarr | Jun 2019 | B2 |
10307615 | Ollila et al. | Jun 2019 | B2 |
10315047 | Glimelius et al. | Jun 2019 | B2 |
10413755 | Sahadevan | Sep 2019 | B1 |
10449389 | Ollila et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10449391 | Buchsbaum | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10485988 | Kuusela et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10525285 | Friedman | Jan 2020 | B1 |
10549117 | Vanderstraten et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10603514 | Grittani et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10609806 | Roecken et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10610700 | Traneus | Apr 2020 | B2 |
10617892 | Oldham | Apr 2020 | B2 |
10636609 | Bertsche et al. | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10660588 | Boyd et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
10661100 | Shen | May 2020 | B2 |
10682528 | Ansorge et al. | Jun 2020 | B2 |
10702716 | Heese | Jul 2020 | B2 |
10758746 | Kwak et al. | Sep 2020 | B2 |
10814144 | Khuntia | Oct 2020 | B2 |
10870018 | Bartkoski et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
10918886 | Smith | Feb 2021 | B2 |
11090508 | Folkerts | Aug 2021 | B2 |
11116995 | Khuntia | Sep 2021 | B2 |
11173325 | Parry | Nov 2021 | B2 |
20070287878 | Fantini et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080023644 | Pedroni | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20090063110 | Failla et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090287467 | Sparks et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100119032 | Yan et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100177870 | Nord et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100178245 | Arnsdorf et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100260317 | Chang et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110006224 | Maltz et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110091015 | Yu et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110135058 | Sgouros et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120076271 | Yan et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120157746 | Meltsner et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120171745 | Itoh | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120197058 | Shukla et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20130116929 | Carlton et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130150922 | Butson et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130177641 | Ghoroghchian | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130231516 | Loo et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140177807 | Lewellen et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140185776 | Li et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140206926 | van der Laarse | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140275706 | Dean et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140369476 | Harding | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150011817 | Feng | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150202464 | Brand et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150306423 | Bharat et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20160279444 | Schlosser | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160310764 | Bharadwaj et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20170189721 | Sumanaweera et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170203129 | Dessy | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170281973 | Allen et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20180021594 | Papp et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180043183 | Sheng et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180056090 | Jordan et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180099154 | Prieels | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180099155 | Prieels et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180099159 | Forton et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180154183 | Sahadevan | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180197303 | Jordan et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180207425 | Carlton et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180236268 | Zwart et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20190022407 | Abel et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190022422 | Trail et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190054315 | Isola et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190070435 | Joe Anto et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190168027 | Smith et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190255361 | Mansfield | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190299027 | Fujii et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190299029 | Inoue | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190351259 | Lee et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200001118 | Snider, III et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200022248 | Yi et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200030633 | Van Heteren et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200035438 | Star-Lack et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200069818 | Jaskula-Ranga et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200164224 | Vanderstraten et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200178890 | Otto | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200197730 | Safavi-Naeini et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200254279 | Ohishi | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200269068 | Abel et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200276456 | Swerdloff | Sep 2020 | A1 |
20200282234 | Folkerts et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
104001270 | Aug 2014 | CN |
106730407 | May 2017 | CN |
107362464 | Nov 2017 | CN |
109966662 | Jul 2019 | CN |
111481840 | Aug 2020 | CN |
111481841 | Aug 2020 | CN |
010207 | Jun 2008 | EA |
0979656 | Feb 2000 | EP |
3178522 | Jun 2017 | EP |
3338858 | Jun 2018 | EP |
3384961 | Oct 2018 | EP |
3421087 | Jan 2019 | EP |
3453427 | Mar 2019 | EP |
3586920 | Jan 2020 | EP |
2617283 | Jun 1997 | JP |
2019097969 | Jun 2019 | JP |
2007017177 | Feb 2007 | WO |
2010018476 | Feb 2010 | WO |
2013081218 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2013133936 | Sep 2013 | WO |
2014139493 | Sep 2014 | WO |
2015038832 | Mar 2015 | WO |
2015102680 | Jul 2015 | WO |
2016122957 | Aug 2016 | WO |
2017156316 | Sep 2017 | WO |
2017174643 | Oct 2017 | WO |
2018137772 | Aug 2018 | WO |
2018152302 | Aug 2018 | WO |
2019097250 | May 2019 | WO |
2019103983 | May 2019 | WO |
2019164835 | Aug 2019 | WO |
2019166702 | Sep 2019 | WO |
2019185378 | Oct 2019 | WO |
2019222436 | Nov 2019 | WO |
2020018904 | Jan 2020 | WO |
2020064832 | Apr 2020 | WO |
2020107121 | Jun 2020 | WO |
2020159360 | Aug 2020 | WO |
Entry |
---|
P. Lansonneur et al., First proton minibeam radiation therapy treatment plan evaluation, Scientific Reports, 10: 7025 (2020). (Year: 2020). |
Greg Schimke et al., A Model for Secondary Monitor Unit Calculations of PBS Proton Therapy Treatment Plans, International Journal of Particle Therapy 5(3): 5-10 (2019). (Year: 2019). |
Sheng Huang et al., Validation and clinical implementation of an accurate Monte Carlo code for pencil beam scanning proton therapy, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 19(5): 558-572, (2018). (Year: 2018). |
Liyong Lin et al., Beam-specific planning target volumes incorporating 4D CT for pencil beam scanning proton therapy of thoracic tumors, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 16(6), 281-292 (2015). (Year: 2015). |
X. Ronald Zhu et al., Towards Effective and Efficient Patient-Specific Quality Assurance for Spot Scanning Proton Therapy, Cancers 7(2): 631-647 (2015). (Year: 2015). |
Martin Hillbrand and Dietmar Georg, Assessing a set of optimal user interface parameters for intensity-modulated proton therapy planning, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 11, No. 4, 93-104 (2010). (Year: 2010). |
M. McManus et al., “The challenge of ionisation chamber dosimetry in ultra-short pulsed high dose-rate Very High Energy Electron beams,” Sci Rep 10, 9089 (2020), published Jun. 3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65819-y. |
Ibrahim Oraiqat et al., “An Ionizing Radiation Acoustic Imaging (iRAI) Technique for Real-Time Dosimetric Measurements for FLASH Radiotherapy,” Medical Physics, vol. 47, Issue10, Oct. 2020, pp. 5090-5101, First published: Jun. 27, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14358. |
K. Petersson et al., “Dosimetry of ultra high dose rate irradiation for studies on the biological effect induced in normal brain and GBM,” ICTR-PHE 2016, p. S84, Feb. 2016, https://publisher-connector.core.ac.uk/resourcesync/data/elsevier/pdf/14c/aHR0cDovL2FwaS5lbHNldmllci5jb20vY29udGVudC9hcnRpY2xIL3BpaS9zMDE2NzgxNDAxNjMwMTcyNA==.pdf. |
Susanne Auer et al., “Survival of tumor cells after proton irradiation with ultra-high dose rates,” Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:139, Published Oct. 18, 2011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-139. |
Cynthia E. Keen, “Clinical linear accelerator delivers FLASH radiotherapy,” Physics World, Apr. 23, 2019, IOP Publishing Ltd, https://physicsworld.com/a/clinical-linear-accelerator-delivers-flash-radiotherapy/. |
Fan et al., “Emission guided radiation therapy for lung and prostate cancers: A feasibility study on a digital patient,” Med Phys. Nov. 2012; 39(11): 7140-7152. Published online Nov. 5, 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505203/ doi: 10.1118/1.4761951. |
Favaudon et al., “Ultrahigh dose-rate, “flash” irradiation minimizes the side-effects of radiotherapy,” Cancer / Radiotherapy, vol. 19, Issues 6-7 , Oct. 2015 , pp. 526-531, Available online Aug. 12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2015.04.006. |
O. Zlobinskaya et al., “The Effects of Ultra-High Dose Rate Proton Irradiation on Growth Delay in the Treatment of Human Tumor Xenografts in Nude Mice,” Radiation Research, 181(2):177-183. Published Feb. 13, 2014, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1667/RR13464.1. |
Bjorn Zackrisson, “Biological Effects Of High Energy Radiation And Ultra High Dose Rates,” Umea University Medical Dissertations, New series No. 315—ISSN 0346-6612, From the Department of Oncology, University of Umea, Umea, Sweden, ISBN 91-7174-614-5, Printed in Sweden by the Printing Office of Umea University, Umea, 1991. |
P. Montay-Gruel et al., “Irradiation in a flash: Unique sparing of memory in mice after whole brain irradiation with dose rates above 100 Gy/s,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 124, Issue 3, Sep. 2017, pp. 365-369, Available online May 22, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.05.003. |
BW Loo et al., “Delivery of Ultra-Rapid Flash Radiation Therapy and Demonstration of Normal Tissue Sparing After Abdominal Irradiation of Mice,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 98, Issue 2, p. E16, Supplement: S Meeting Abstract: P003, Published: Jun. 1, 2017, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.101. |
Bhanu Prasad Venkatesulu et al., “Ultra high dose rate (35 Gy/sec) radiation does not spare the normal tissue in cardiac and splenic models of lymphopenia and gastrointestinal syndrome,” Sci Rep 9, 17180 (2019), Published Nov. 20, 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53562-y. |
P. Montay-Gruel et al., “Long-term neurocognitive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species,” PNAS May 28, 2019, vol. 116, No. 22, pp. 10943-10951; first published May 16, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901777116. |
Peter G. Maxim et al., “FLASH radiotherapy: Newsflash or flash in the pan?”, Medical Physics, 46 (10), Oct. 2019, pp. 4287-4290, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, First published: Jun. 27, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13685. |
Andrei Pugachev et al., “Pseudo beam's-eye-view as applied to beam orientation selection in intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 51, Issue 5, p. 1361-1370, Dec. 1, 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01736-9. |
Xiaodong Zhang et al., “Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Reduces the Dose to Normal Tissue Compared With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy or Passive Scattering Proton Therapy and Enables Individualized Radical Radiotherapy for Extensive Stage IIIB Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Virtual Clinical Study,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 357-366, 2010, Available online Aug. 5, 2009, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.028. |
A. J. Lomax et al, “Intensity modulated proton therapy: A clinical example,” Medical Physics, vol. 28, Issue 3, Mar. 2001, pp. 317-324, First published: Mar. 9, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1350587. |
Lamberto Widesott et al., “Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Helical Tomotherapy in Nasopharynx Cancer: Planning Comparison and NTCP Evaluation,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 589-596, Oct. 1, 2008, Available online Sep. 13, 2008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.065. |
Andrei Pugachev et al., “Role of beam orientation optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 551-560, Jun. 1, 2001, Available online May 10, 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01502-4. |
Damien C. Weber et al., “Radiation therapy planning with photons and protons for early and advanced breast cancer: an overview,” Radiat Oncol. 2006; 1: 22. Published online Jul. 20, 2006, doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-1-22. |
RaySearch Laboratories, “Leading the way in cancer treatment, Annual Report 2013,” RaySearch Laboratories (publ), Stockholm, Sweden, 94 pages, Apr. 2014, https://www.raysearchlabs.com/siteassets/about-overview/media-center/wp-re-ev-n-pdfs/brochures/raysearch-ar-2013-eng.pdf. |
Fredrik Carlsson, “Utilizing Problem Structure in Optimization of Radiation Therapy,” KTH Engineering Sciences, Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm, Sweden, Apr. 2008, Optimization and Systems Theory, Department of Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, ISSN 1401-2294, https://www.raysearchlabs.com/globalassets/about-overview/media-center/wp-re-ev-n-pdfs/publications/thesis-fredrik_light.pdf. |
Chang-Ming Charlie Ma, “Physics and Dosimetric Principles of SRS and SBRT,” Mathews J Cancer Sci. 4(2): 22, 2019, published: Dec. 11, 2019, ISSN: 2474-6797, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30654/MJCS.10022. |
Alterego-Admin, “Conventional Radiation Therapy May Not Protect Healthy Brain Cells,” International Neuropsychiatric Association—INA, Oct. 10, 2019, https://inawebsite.org/conventional-radiation-therapy-may-not-protect-healthy-brain-cells/. |
Aafke Christine Kraan, “Range verification methods in particle therapy: underlying physics and Monte Carlo modeling,” Frontiers in Oncology, Jul. 7, 2015, vol. 5, Article 150, 27 pages, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00150. |
Wayne D. Newhauser et al., “The physics of proton therapy,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, Mar. 24, 2015, 60 R155-R209, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, IOP Publishing, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/R155. |
S E McGowan et al., “Treatment planning optimisation in proton therapy,” Br J Radiol, 2013, 86, 20120288, The British Institute of Radiology, 12 pages, DOI: 10.1259.bjr.20120288. |
Steven Van De Water et al., “Towards FLASH proton therapy: the impact of treatment planning and machine characteristics on achievable dose rates,” ACTA Oncologica, Jun. 26, 2019, vol. 58, No. 10, p. 1462-1469, Taylor & Francis Group, DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1627416. |
J. Groen, “FLASH optimisation in clinical IMPT treatment planning,” MSc Thesis, Jul. 1, 2020, Erasmus University Medical Center, department of radiotherapy, Delft University of Technology, 72 pages. |
Muhammad Ramish Ashraf et al., “Dosimetry for FLASH Radiotherapy: A Review of Tools and the Role of Radioluminescence and Cherenkov Emission,” Frontiers in Oncology, Aug. 21, 2020, vol. 8, Article 328, 20 pages, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00328. |
Emil Schuler et al., “Experimental Platform for Ultra-high Dose Rate FLASH Irradiation of Small Animals Using a Clinical Linear Accelerator,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 97, No. 1, Sep. 2016, pp. 195-203. |
Elette Engels et al., “Toward personalized synchrotron microbeam radiation therapy,” Scientific Reports, 10:8833, Jun. 1, 2020, 13 pages, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65729-z. |
P-H Mackeprang et al., “Assessing dose rate distributions in VMAT plans” (Accepted Version), Accepted Version: https://boris.unibe.ch/92814/8/dose_rate_project_revised_submit.pdf Published Version: 2016, Physics in medicine and biology, 61(8), pp. 3208-3221. Institute of Physics Publishing IOP, published Mar. 29, 2016, https://boris.unibe.ch/92814/. |
Xiaoying Liang et al., “Using Robust Optimization for Skin Flashing in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer Treatment: A Feasibility Study,” Practical Radiation Oncology, vol. 10, Issue 1, p. 59-69, Published by Elsevier Inc., Oct. 15, 2019. |
Alexei Trofimov et al., “Optimization of Beam Parameters and Treatment Planning for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy,” Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, vol. 2, No. 5, Oct. 2003, p. 437-444, Adenine Press. |
Vladimir Anferov, “Scan pattern optimization for uniform proton beam scanning,” Medical Physics, vol. 36, Issue 8, Aug. 2009, pp. 3560-3567, First published: Jul. 2, 2009. |
Ryosuke Kohno et al., “Development of Continuous Line Scanning System Prototype for Proton Beam Therapy,” International Journal of Particle Therapy, Jul. 11, 2017, vol. 3, Issue 4, p. 429-438, DOI: 10.14338/IJPT-16-00017.1. |
Wenbo Gu et al., “Integrated Beam Orientation and Scanning-Spot Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Brain and Unilateral Head and Neck Tumors,” Med Phys. Author manuscript; available in PMC Apr. 1, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904040/ Published in final edited form as: Med Phys. Apr. 2018; 45(4): 1338-1350. Published online Mar. 1, 2018. doi: 10.1002/mp.12788 Accepted manuscript online: Feb. 2, 2018. |
Paul Morel et al., “Spot weight adaptation for moving target in spot scanning proton therapy,” Frontiers in Oncology, May 28, 2015, vol. 5, Article 119, 7 pages, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00119. |
Simeon Nill et al., “Inverse planning of intensity modulated proton therapy,” Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Physik, vol. 14, Issue 1, 2004, pp. 35-40, https://doi.org/10.1078/0939-3889-00198. |
A. Lomax, “Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, Jan. 1999, vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 185-205, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/44/1/014. |
M Kramer et al., “Treatment planning for heavy-ion radiotherapy: physical beam model and dose optimization,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2000, vol. 45, No. 11, pp. 3299-3317, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/313. |
Harald Paganetti, “Proton Beam Therapy,” Jan. 2017, Physics World Discovery, IOP Publishing Ltd, Bristol, UK, 34 pages, DOI: 10.1088/978-0-7503-1370-4. |
Shinichi Shimizu et al., “A Proton Beam Therapy System Dedicated to Spot-Scanning Increases Accuracy with Moving Tumors by Real-Time Imaging and Gating and Reduces Equipment Size,” PLoS ONE, Apr. 18, 2014, vol. 9, Issue 4, e94971, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094971. |
Heng Li et al., “Reducing Dose Uncertainty for Spot-Scanning Proton Beam Therapy of Moving Tumors by Optimizing the Spot Delivery Sequence,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 93, Issue 3, Nov. 1, 2015, pp. 547-556, available online Jun. 18, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.06.019. |
Ion Beam Applications SA, “Netherlands Proton Therapy Center Delivers First Clinical Flash Irradiation,” Imaging Technology News, May 2, 2019, Wainscot Media, https://www.itnonline.com/content/netherlands-proton-therapy-center-delivers-first-clinical-flash-irradiation. |
R. M. De Kruijff, “FLASH radiotherapy: ultra-high dose rates to spare healthy tissue,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2020, vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 419-423, published online: Dec. 19, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1704912. |
Mevion Medical Systems, “Focus On The Future: Flash Therapy,” Press Releases, Sep. 16, 2019, https://www.mevion.com/newsroom/press-releases/focus-future-flash-therapy. |
Joseph D. Wilson et al., “Ultra-High Dose Rate (FLASH) Radiotherapy: Silver Bullet or Fool's Gold?”, Frontiers in Oncology, Jan. 17, 2020, vol. 9, Article 1563, 12 pages, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01563. |
David P. Gierga, “Is Flash Radiotherapy coming?”, International Organization for Medical Physics, 2020, https://www.iomp.org/iomp-news2-flash-radiotherapy/. |
Abdullah Muhammad Zakaria et al., “Ultra-High Dose-Rate, Pulsed (FLASH) Radiotherapy with Carbon Ions: Generation of Early, Transient, Highly Oxygenated Conditions in the Tumor Environment,” Radiation Research, Dec. 1, 2020, vol. 194, Issue 6, pp. 587-593, Radiation Research Society, Published: Aug. 27, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-19-00015.1. |
Yusuke Demizu et al., “Carbon Ion Therapy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 727962, 9 pages, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, published: Sep. 11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/727962. |
Ivana Dokic et al., “Next generation multi-scale biophysical characterization of high precision cancer particle radiotherapy using clinical proton, helium-, carbon- and oxygen ion beams,” Oncotarget, Aug. 30, 2016, vol. 7, No. 35, pp. 56676-56689, published online: Aug. 1, 2016, doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10996. |
Aetna Inc., “Proton Beam, Neutron Beam, and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy,” 2020, No. 0270, http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0270.html. |
Nicholas W. Colangelo et al., “The Importance and Clinical Implications of FLASH Ultra-High Dose-Rate Studies for Proton and Heavy Ion Radiotherapy,” Radiat Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jan. 1, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6949397/ Published in final edited form as: Radiat Res. Jan. 2020; 193(1): 1-4. Published online Oct. 28, 2019. doi: 10.1667/RR15537.1. |
Vincent Favaudon et al., “Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice,” Science Translational Medicine, Jul. 16, 2014, vol. 6, Issue 245, 245ra93, American Association for the Advancement of Science, DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008973. |
“FlashRad: Ultra-high dose-rate Flash radiotherapy to minimize the complications of radiotherapy,” 2014, https://siric.curie.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/flashrad.pdf. |
Tami Freeman, “FLASH radiotherapy: from preclinical promise to the first human treatment,” Physics World, Aug. 6, 2019, IOP Publishing Ltd, https://physicsworld.com/a/flash-radiotherapy-from-preclinical-promise-to-the-first-human-treatment/. |
IntraOp Medical, Inc., “IntraOp and Lausanne University Hospital Announce Collaboration in FLASH radiotherapy,” Jun. 18, 2020, https://intraop.com/news-events/lausanne-university-flash-radiotherapy-collaboration/. |
M.-C. Vozenin et al., “Biological Benefits of Ultra-high Dose Rate FLASH Radiotherapy: Sleeping Beauty Awoken,” Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). Author manuscript; available in PMC Nov. 12, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850216/ Published in final edited form as: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). Jul. 2019; 31(7): 407-415. Published online Apr. 19, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2019.04.001. |
Efstathios Kamperis et al., “A FLASH back to radiotherapy's past and then fast forward to the future,” J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2019;10(6):142-144. published Nov. 13, 2019, DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2019.10.00407. |
P. Symonds et al., “FLASH Radiotherapy: The Next Technological Advance in Radiation Therapy?”, Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, Issue 7, p. 405-406, Jul. 1, 2019, The Royal College of Radiologists, Published by Elsevier Ltd., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2019.05.011. |
Swati Girdhani et al., “Abstract LB-280: FLASH: A novel paradigm changing tumor irradiation platform that enhances therapeutic ratio by reducing normal tissue toxicity and activating immune pathways,” Proceedings: AACR Annual Meeting 2019; Mar. 29-Apr. 3, 2019; Atlanta, GA, published Jul. 2019, vol. 79, Issue 13 Supplement, pp. LB-280, American Association for Cancer Research, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2019-LB-280. |
Bazalova-Carter et al., “On the capabilities of conventional x-ray tubes to deliver ultra-high (FLASH) dose rates,” Med. Phys. Dec. 2019; 46 (12):5690-5695, published Oct. 23, 2019, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, doi: 10.1002/mp.13858. Epub Oct. 23, 2019. PMID: 31600830. |
Manuela Buonanno et al., “Biological effects in normal cells exposed to FLASH dose rate protons,” Radiother Oncol. Author manuscript; available in PMC Oct. 1, 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728238/ Published in final edited form as: Radiother Oncol. Oct. 2019; 139: 51-55. Published online Mar. 5, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.02.009. |
N. Rama et al., “Improved Tumor Control Through T-cell Infiltration Modulated by Ultra-High Dose Rate Proton FLASH Using a Clinical Pencil Beam Scanning Proton System,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 105, Issue 1, Supplement , S164-S165, Sep. 1, 2019, Mini Oral Sessions, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.187. |
INSERM Press Office, “Radiotherapy ‘flashes’ to reduce side effects,” Press Release, Jul. 16, 2014, https://presse.inserm.fr/en/radiotherapy-flashes-to-reduce-side-effects/13394/. |
Eric S. Diffenderfer et al., “Design, Implementation, and in Vivo Validation of a Novel Proton FLASH Radiation Therapy System,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 106, Issue 2, Feb. 1, 2020, pp. 440-448, Available online Jan. 9, 2020, Published by Elsevier Inc., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.049. |
Valerie Devillaine, “Radiotherapy and Radiation Biology,” Institut Curie, Apr. 21, 2017, https://institut-curie.org/page/radiotherapy-and-radiation-biology. |
Imaging Technology News, “ProNova and medPhoton to Offer Next Generation Beam Delivery, Advanced Imaging for Proton Therapy,” Oct. 6, 2014, Wainscot Media, Link: https://www.itnonline.com/content/pronova-and-medphoton-offer-next-generation-beam-delivery-advanced-imaging-proton-therapy. |
Oncolink Team, “Radiation Therapy: Which type is right for me?”, OncoLink Penn Medicine, last reviewed Mar. 3, 2020, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, https://www.oncolink.org/cancer-treatment/radiation/introduction-to-radiation-therapy/radiation-therapy-which-type-is-right-for-me. |
Marco Durante et al., “Faster and safer? FLASH ultra-high dose rate in radiotherapy,” Br J Radiol 2018; 91(1082): Jun. 28, 2017, British Institute of Radiology, Published Online: Dec. 15, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170628. |
John R. Fischer, “PMB launches FLASH radiotherapy system for use in clinical trials,” Healthcare Business News, Jun. 29, 2020, DOTmed.com, Inc., https://www.dotmed.com/news/story/51662. |
Marie-Catherine Vozenin et al., “The advantage of FLASH radiotherapy confirmed in mini-pig and cat-cancer patients,” Clinical Cancer Research, Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst Jun. 6, 2018, https://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/clincanres/early/2018/06/06/1078-0432.CCR-17-3375.full.pdf. |
Van Marlen Patricia et al: “Bringing FLASH to the Clinic:Treatment Planning Consideration for Ultrahigh Dose-Rate Proton Beams” International Journal of Radiation:Oncology Biology Physics, Pergamon Press, USA, vol. 106, No. 3, Nov. 20, 2019 (Nov. 20, 2019), pp. 621-629, XP086013111, ISSN: 0360-3016, DOI: 10.1016/J.IJROBP.2019.11.011 (Retrieved on Nov. 20, 2019) pp. 623, right-hand column. |
Folkerts Michael M et al: “A Framework for Defining FLASH dose rate for pencil beam scanning.” Medical Physics, vol. 47, No. 12, Dec. 2020 (Dec. 2020), pp. 6396-6404, XP002804313, issn: 2473-4209, DOI: 10.1002/mp.14456 Chapter 2. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210393981 A1 | Dec 2021 | US |