SU-E-T-375: Passive Scattering to Pencil-Beam-Scanning Comparison for Medulloblastoma Proton Therapy: LET Distributions and Radiobiological Implications

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the linear energy transfer (LET) distributions between passive scattering and pencil beam scanning proton radiation therapy techniques for medulloblastoma patients and study the potential radiobiological implications. Methods: A group of medulloblastoma patients, previously treated with passive scattering (PS) proton craniospinal irradiation followed by prosterior fossa or involved field boost, were selected from the patient database of our institution. Using the beam geometry and planning computed tomography (CT) image sets of the original treatment plans, pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatment plans were generated for the cranial treatment for each patient, with average beam spot size of 8mm (sigma in air at isocenter). 3-dimensional dose and LET distributions were calculated by Monte Carlo methods (TOPAS) both for the original passive scattering and new pencil beam scanning treatment plans. LET volume histograms were calculated for the target and OARs and compared for the two delivery methods. Variable RBE weighted dose distributions and volume histograms were also calculated using a variable dose and LET-based model. Results: Better dose conformity was achieved with PBS planning compared to PS, leading to increased dose coverage for the boost target area and decreased average dose to the structures adjacent to it and critical structures outside the whole brain treatment field. LET values for the target were lower for PBS plans. Elevated LET values for OARs close to the boosted target areas were noticed, due to end of range of proton beams falling inside these structures, resulting in higher RBE weighted dose for these structures compared to the clinical RBE value of 1.1. Conclusion: Transitioning from passive scattering to pencil beam scanning proton radiation treatment can be dosimetrically beneficial for medulloblastoma patients. LET–guided treatment planning could contribute to better decision making for these cases, especially for critical structures at close proximity to the boosted target area.