In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes

Giovanni Fava, Lamberto Widesott, Francesco Fellin, Maurizio Amichetti, Valentina Viesi, Antony J. Lomax, Lydia Lederer, Eugen B. Hug, Claudio Fiorino, Giovannella Salvadori, Nadia Di Muzio, Marco Schwarz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: We estimated the potential advantage of remote positioning (RP) vs. in-room positioning (IP) for a proton therapy facility in terms of patient throughput. Materials and methods: Monte Carlo simulations of facilities with one, two or three gantries were performed. A sensitivity analysis was applied by varying the imaging and setup correction system (ICS), the speed of transporters (for RP) and beam switching time. Possible advantages of using three couches (for RP) or of switching the beam between fields was also investigated. Results: For a single gantry facility, an average of 20% more patients could be treated using RP: ranging from +45%, if a fast transporter and slow ICS were simulated, to -14% if a slow transporter and fast ICS was simulated. For two gantries, about 10% more patients could be treated with RP, ranging from +32% (fast transporter, slow ICS) to -12% (slow transporter, fast ICS). The ability to switch beam between fields did not substantially influence the throughput. In addition, the use of three transporters showed increased delays and therefore a slight reduction of the fractions executables. For three gantries, RP and IP showed similar results. Conclusions: The advantage of RP vs. IP strongly depends on ICS and the speed of the transporters. For RP to be advantageous, reduced transport times are required. The advantage of RP decreases with increasing number of gantries.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)18-24
Number of pages7
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume103
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2012

Fingerprint

Proton Therapy
Patient Positioning
Monte Carlo Method

Keywords

  • External positioning in proton therapy
  • Monte Carlo simulation
  • Remote positioning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Hematology

Cite this

In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes. / Fava, Giovanni; Widesott, Lamberto; Fellin, Francesco; Amichetti, Maurizio; Viesi, Valentina; Lomax, Antony J.; Lederer, Lydia; Hug, Eugen B.; Fiorino, Claudio; Salvadori, Giovannella; Di Muzio, Nadia; Schwarz, Marco.

In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 103, No. 1, 04.2012, p. 18-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fava, G, Widesott, L, Fellin, F, Amichetti, M, Viesi, V, Lomax, AJ, Lederer, L, Hug, EB, Fiorino, C, Salvadori, G, Di Muzio, N & Schwarz, M 2012, 'In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes', Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.004
Fava, Giovanni ; Widesott, Lamberto ; Fellin, Francesco ; Amichetti, Maurizio ; Viesi, Valentina ; Lomax, Antony J. ; Lederer, Lydia ; Hug, Eugen B. ; Fiorino, Claudio ; Salvadori, Giovannella ; Di Muzio, Nadia ; Schwarz, Marco. / In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes. In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2012 ; Vol. 103, No. 1. pp. 18-24.
@article{60802e7656d44008b707662c4b8e05fa,
title = "In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes",
abstract = "Purpose: We estimated the potential advantage of remote positioning (RP) vs. in-room positioning (IP) for a proton therapy facility in terms of patient throughput. Materials and methods: Monte Carlo simulations of facilities with one, two or three gantries were performed. A sensitivity analysis was applied by varying the imaging and setup correction system (ICS), the speed of transporters (for RP) and beam switching time. Possible advantages of using three couches (for RP) or of switching the beam between fields was also investigated. Results: For a single gantry facility, an average of 20{\%} more patients could be treated using RP: ranging from +45{\%}, if a fast transporter and slow ICS were simulated, to -14{\%} if a slow transporter and fast ICS was simulated. For two gantries, about 10{\%} more patients could be treated with RP, ranging from +32{\%} (fast transporter, slow ICS) to -12{\%} (slow transporter, fast ICS). The ability to switch beam between fields did not substantially influence the throughput. In addition, the use of three transporters showed increased delays and therefore a slight reduction of the fractions executables. For three gantries, RP and IP showed similar results. Conclusions: The advantage of RP vs. IP strongly depends on ICS and the speed of the transporters. For RP to be advantageous, reduced transport times are required. The advantage of RP decreases with increasing number of gantries.",
keywords = "External positioning in proton therapy, Monte Carlo simulation, Remote positioning",
author = "Giovanni Fava and Lamberto Widesott and Francesco Fellin and Maurizio Amichetti and Valentina Viesi and Lomax, {Antony J.} and Lydia Lederer and Hug, {Eugen B.} and Claudio Fiorino and Giovannella Salvadori and {Di Muzio}, Nadia and Marco Schwarz",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.004",
language = "English",
volume = "103",
pages = "18--24",
journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
issn = "0167-8140",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes

AU - Fava, Giovanni

AU - Widesott, Lamberto

AU - Fellin, Francesco

AU - Amichetti, Maurizio

AU - Viesi, Valentina

AU - Lomax, Antony J.

AU - Lederer, Lydia

AU - Hug, Eugen B.

AU - Fiorino, Claudio

AU - Salvadori, Giovannella

AU - Di Muzio, Nadia

AU - Schwarz, Marco

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - Purpose: We estimated the potential advantage of remote positioning (RP) vs. in-room positioning (IP) for a proton therapy facility in terms of patient throughput. Materials and methods: Monte Carlo simulations of facilities with one, two or three gantries were performed. A sensitivity analysis was applied by varying the imaging and setup correction system (ICS), the speed of transporters (for RP) and beam switching time. Possible advantages of using three couches (for RP) or of switching the beam between fields was also investigated. Results: For a single gantry facility, an average of 20% more patients could be treated using RP: ranging from +45%, if a fast transporter and slow ICS were simulated, to -14% if a slow transporter and fast ICS was simulated. For two gantries, about 10% more patients could be treated with RP, ranging from +32% (fast transporter, slow ICS) to -12% (slow transporter, fast ICS). The ability to switch beam between fields did not substantially influence the throughput. In addition, the use of three transporters showed increased delays and therefore a slight reduction of the fractions executables. For three gantries, RP and IP showed similar results. Conclusions: The advantage of RP vs. IP strongly depends on ICS and the speed of the transporters. For RP to be advantageous, reduced transport times are required. The advantage of RP decreases with increasing number of gantries.

AB - Purpose: We estimated the potential advantage of remote positioning (RP) vs. in-room positioning (IP) for a proton therapy facility in terms of patient throughput. Materials and methods: Monte Carlo simulations of facilities with one, two or three gantries were performed. A sensitivity analysis was applied by varying the imaging and setup correction system (ICS), the speed of transporters (for RP) and beam switching time. Possible advantages of using three couches (for RP) or of switching the beam between fields was also investigated. Results: For a single gantry facility, an average of 20% more patients could be treated using RP: ranging from +45%, if a fast transporter and slow ICS were simulated, to -14% if a slow transporter and fast ICS was simulated. For two gantries, about 10% more patients could be treated with RP, ranging from +32% (fast transporter, slow ICS) to -12% (slow transporter, fast ICS). The ability to switch beam between fields did not substantially influence the throughput. In addition, the use of three transporters showed increased delays and therefore a slight reduction of the fractions executables. For three gantries, RP and IP showed similar results. Conclusions: The advantage of RP vs. IP strongly depends on ICS and the speed of the transporters. For RP to be advantageous, reduced transport times are required. The advantage of RP decreases with increasing number of gantries.

KW - External positioning in proton therapy

KW - Monte Carlo simulation

KW - Remote positioning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859732543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859732543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.004

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.004

M3 - Article

VL - 103

SP - 18

EP - 24

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

SN - 0167-8140

IS - 1

ER -