A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases

Recent advances progress in radiotherapy for breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery: a review

Adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery has become an integral part of the treatment of breast cancer. In recent years, the development of radiotherapy technology has made great progress in this field, including the comparison of the curative effects of various radiotherapy techniques and the performance of the segmentation times. The choice of radiotherapy technology needs to be co-determined by clinical evidence practice and evaluated for each individual patient to achieve precision radiotherapy. This article discusses the treatment effects of different radiotherapy, techniques, the risk of second cancers and short-range radiation therapy techniques after breast-conserving surgery such as hypo fractionated whole breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation. The choice of radiotherapy regimen needs to be based on the individual condition of the patient, and the general principle is to focus on the target area and reduce the irradiation of the normal tissues and organs. Short-range radiotherapy and hypofractionated are superior to conventional radiotherapy and are expected to become the mainstream treatment after breast-conserving surgery.

Proton versus photon radiation therapy: A clinical review

While proton radiation therapy offers substantially better dose distribution characteristics than photon radiation therapy in certain clinical applications, data demonstrating a quantifiable clinical advantage is still needed for many treatment sites. Unfortunately, the number of patients treated with proton radiation therapy is still comparatively small, in some part due to the lack of evidence of clear benefits over lower-cost photon-based treatments. This review is designed to present the comparative clinical outcomes between proton and photon therapies, and to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of proton radiation therapy.

In-vivo range verification analysis with in-beam PET data for patients treated with proton therapy at CNAO

Morphological changes that may arise through a treatment course are probably one of the most significant sources of range uncertainty in proton therapy. Non-invasive in-vivo treatment monitoring is useful to increase treatment quality. The INSIDE in-beam Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanner performs in-vivo range monitoring in proton and carbon therapy treatments at the National Center of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO). It is currently in a clinical trial (ID: NCT03662373) and has acquired in-beam PET data during the treatment of various patients. In this work we analyze the in-beam PET (IB-PET) data of eight patients treated with proton therapy at CNAO. The goal of the analysis is twofold. First, we assess the level of experimental fluctuations in inter-fractional range differences (sensitivity) of the INSIDE PET system by studying patients without morphological changes. Second, we use the obtained results to see whether we can observe anomalously large range variations in patients where morphological changes have occurred. The sensitivity of the INSIDE IB-PET scanner was quantified as the standard deviation of the range difference distributions observed for six patients that did not show morphological changes. Inter-fractional range variations with respect to a reference distribution were estimated using the Most-Likely-Shift (MLS) method. To establish the efficacy of this method, we made a comparison with the Beam’s Eye View (BEV) method. For patients showing no morphological changes in the control CT the average range variation standard deviation was found to be 2.5 mm with the MLS method and 2.3 mm with the BEV method. On the other hand, for patients where some small anatomical changes occurred, we found larger standard deviation values. In these patients we evaluated where anomalous range differences were found and compared them with the CT. We found that the identified regions were mostly in agreement with the morphological changes seen in the CT scan.