Oliver Jaekel

Carbon ion radiotherapy for pediatric patients and young adults treated for tumors of the skull base

The current study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of carbon ion radiotherapy (RT) in children and young adults with skull base chordomas and chondrosarcomas.

Proton dosimetry intercomparison based on the ICRU report 59 protocol

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE A new protocol for calibration of proton beams was established by the ICRU in report 59 on proton dosimetry. In this paper we report the results of an international proton dosimetry intercomparison, which was held at Loma Linda University Medical Center. The goals of the intercomparison were, first, to estimate the level of consistency in absorbed dose delivered to patients if proton beams at various clinics were calibrated with the new ICRU protocol, and second, to evaluate the differences in absorbed dose determination due to differences in 60Co-based ionization chamber calibration factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eleven institutions participated in the intercomparison. Measurements were performed in a polystyrene phantom at a depth of 10.27 cm water equivalent thickness in a 6-cm modulated proton beam with an accelerator energy of 155 MeV and an incident energy of approximately 135 MeV. Most participants used ionization chambers calibrated in terms of exposure or air kerma. Four ionization chambers had 60Co-based calibration in terms of absorbed dose-to-water. Two chambers were calibrated in a 60Co beam at the NIST both in terms of air kerma and absorbed dose-to-water to provide a comparison of ionization chambers with different calibrations. RESULTS The intercomparison showed that use of the ICRU report 59 protocol would result in absorbed doses being delivered to patients at their participating institutions to within +/-0.9% (one standard deviation). The maximum difference between doses determined by the participants was found to be 2.9%. Differences between proton doses derived from the measurements with ionization chambers with N(K)-, or N(W) - calibration type depended on chamber type. CONCLUSIONS Using ionization chambers with 60Co calibration factors traceable to standard laboratories and the ICRU report 59 protocol, a distribution of stated proton absorbed dose is achieved with a difference less than 3%. The ICRU protocol should be adopted for clinical proton beam calibration. A comparison of proton doses derived from measurements with different chambers indicates that the difference in results cannot be explained only by differences in 60Co calibration factors.

Proton and carbon ion radiotherapy for primary brain tumors delivered with active raster scanning at the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT): early treatment results and study concepts

BackgroundParticle irradiation was established at the University of Heidelberg 2 years ago. To date, more than 400 patients have been treated including patients with primary brain tumors. In malignant glioma (WHO IV) patients, two clinical trials have been set up-one investigating the benefit of a carbon ion (18 GyE) vs. a proton boost (10 GyE) in addition to photon radiotherapy (50 Gy), the other one investigating reirradiation with escalating total dose schedules starting at 30 GyE. In atypical meningioma patients (WHO °II), a carbon ion boost of 18 GyE is applied to macroscopic tumor residues following previous photon irradiation with 50 Gy.This study was set up in order to investigate toxicity and response after proton and carbon ion therapy for gliomas and meningiomas.Methods33 patients with gliomas (n = 26) and meningiomas (n = 7) were treated with carbon ion (n = 26) and proton (n = 7) radiotherapy. In 22 patients, particle irradiation was combined with photon therapy. Temozolomide-based chemotherapy was combined with particle therapy in 17 patients with gliomas. Particle therapy as reirradiation was conducted in 7 patients. Target volume definition was based upon CT, MRI and PET imaging. Response was assessed by MRI examinations, and progression was diagnosed according to the Macdonald criteria. Toxicity was classified according to CTCAE v4.0.ResultsTreatment was completed and tolerated well in all patients. Toxicity was moderate and included fatigue (24.2%), intermittent cranial nerve symptoms (6%) and single episodes of seizures (6%). At first and second follow-up examinations, mean maximum tumor diameters had slightly decreased from 29.7 mm to 27.1 mm and 24.9 mm respectively. Nine glioma patients suffered from tumor relapse, among these 5 with infield relapses, causing death in 8 patients. There was no progression in any meningioma patient.ConclusionsParticle radiotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with primary brain tumors. It is associated with little toxicity. A positive response of both gliomas and meningiomas, which is suggested in these preliminary data, must be evaluated in further clinical trials.

Intrafractional dose variation and beam configuration in carbon ion radiotherapy for esophageal cancer.

BackgroundIn carbon ion radiotherapy (CIR) for esophageal cancer, organ and target motion is a major challenge for treatment planning due to potential range deviations. This study intends to analyze the impact of intrafractional variations on dosimetric parameters and to identify favourable settings for robust treatment plans.MethodsWe contoured esophageal boost volumes in different organ localizations for four patients and calculated CIR-plans with 13 different beam geometries on a free-breathing CT. Forward calculation of these plans was performed on 4D-CT datasets representing seven different phases of the breathing cycle. Plan quality was assessed for each patient and beam configuration.ResultsTarget volume coverage was adequate for all settings in the baseline CIR-plans (V95 > 98% for two-beam geometries, > 94% for one-beam geometries), but reduced on 4D-CT plans (V95 range 50–95%). Sparing of the organs at risk (OAR) was adequate, but range deviations during the breathing cycle partly caused critical, maximum doses to spinal cord up to 3.5x higher than expected. There was at least one beam configuration for each patient with appropriate plan quality.ConclusionsDespite intrafractional motion, CIR for esophageal cancer is possible with robust treatment plans when an individually optimized beam setup is selected depending on tumor size and localization.