001     130601
005     20240228143447.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1186/s13014-016-0705-8
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:27717378
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC5055683
|2 pmc
024 7 _ |a altmetric:12493509
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2017-05679
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Steitz, Julian
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|e First author
245 _ _ |a Worst case optimization for interfractional motion mitigation in carbon ion therapy of pancreatic cancer.
260 _ _ |a London
|c 2016
|b BioMed Central
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1525699382_2163
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a The efficacy of radiation therapy treatments for pancreatic cancer is compromised by abdominal motion which limits the spatial accuracy for dose delivery - especially for particles. In this work we investigate the potential of worst case optimization for interfractional offline motion mitigation in carbon ion treatments of pancreatic cancer.We implement a worst case optimization algorithm that explicitly models the relative biological effectiveness of carbon ions during inverse planning. We perform a comparative treatment planning study for seven pancreatic cancer patients. Treatment plans that have been generated using worst case optimization are compared against (1) conventional intensity-modulated carbon ion therapy, (2) single field uniform dose carbon ion therapy, and (3) an ideal yet impractical scenario relying on daily re-planning. The dosimetric quality and robustness of the resulting treatment plans is evaluated using reconstructions of the daily delivered dose distributions on fractional control CTs.Idealized daily re-planning consistently gives the best dosimetric results with regard to both target coverage and organ at risk sparing. The absolute reduction of D 95 within the gross tumor volume during fractional dose reconstruction is most pronounced for conventional intensity-modulated carbon ion therapy. Single field uniform dose optimization exhibits no substantial reduction for six of seven patients and values for D 95 for worst case optimization fall in between. The treated volume (D>95 % prescription dose) outside of the gross tumor volume is reduced by a factor of two by worst case optimization compared to conventional optimization and single field uniform dose optimization. Single field uniform dose optimization comes at an increased radiation exposure of normal tissues, e.g. ≈2 Gy (RBE) in the mean dose in the kidneys compared to conventional and worst case optimization and ≈4 Gy (RBE) in D 1 in the spinal cord compared to worst case optimization.Interfractional motion substantially deteriorates dose distributions for carbon ion treatments of pancreatic cancer patients. Single field uniform dose optimization mitigates the negative influence of motion on target coverage at an increased radiation exposure of normal tissue. Worst case optimization enables an exploration of the trade-off between robust target coverage and organ at risk sparing during inverse treatment planning beyond margin concepts.
536 _ _ |a 315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315
|c POF3-315
|f POF III
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
650 _ 7 |a Ions
|2 NLM Chemicals
650 _ 7 |a Carbon
|0 7440-44-0
|2 NLM Chemicals
700 1 _ |a Naumann, Patrick
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Ulrich, Silke
|0 P:(DE-He78)84f1e7432f32ce7df9064fa665afc191
|b 2
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Haefner, Matthias F
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Sterzing, Florian
|0 P:(DE-He78)75d45845a04db67c5a88db1086046ef1
|b 4
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Oelfke, Uwe
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Bangert, Mark
|0 P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b
|b 6
|e Last author
|u dkfz
773 _ _ |a 10.1186/s13014-016-0705-8
|g Vol. 11, no. 1, p. 134
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2224965-5
|n 1
|p 134
|t Radiation oncology
|v 11
|y 2016
|x 1748-717X
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:130601
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-HGF)0
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-He78)84f1e7432f32ce7df9064fa665afc191
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-He78)75d45845a04db67c5a88db1086046ef1
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 6
|6 P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300
|v Imaging and radiooncology
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|b Gesundheit
914 1 _ |y 2016
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0310
|2 StatID
|b NCBI Molecular Biology Database
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
|k E040
|l Medizinische Physik in der Strahlentherapie
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21