Table 4.
Planning parameters specified in current treatment planning studies for passively scattered proton CSI
| Planning Parameters | |
Proton Planning Studies in the Literature |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuh et al. [10] | St. Clair et al. [7] | Yoon et al. [9] | Miralbell et al. [38] | Taddei et al. [8] | |
| Number of Patients |
3 |
1 |
10 |
1 |
2 |
| Patient Age (y) |
3 − 4 |
3.6 |
2 − 17 |
3 |
9,10 |
| Cranial Field Orientation |
RAO, LAO |
RL, LL |
RL, LL |
None |
RAO, LAO |
| Spinal Fields: Number, Orientation |
1 − 3, PA |
1, PA |
1 − 3, PA |
1 |
2, PA |
| Optimization |
"restrict to disease site" |
None stated |
Proton plans re-normalized for comparison with Tomotherapy plans |
constraint to achieve uniform dose to whole spinal theca |
None stated |
| Uncertainty Margins (cm) (with respect to clinical target) | Not given | 0.3 (Penumbra for 160 MeV protons) | Proximal: 0.2 Distal: 0.2 Lateral: 1 Smear: 0.3 | 0.5 (symmetric around CTV) | Not given |
Abbreviations in this table: right anterior oblique (RAO), left anterior oblique (LAO), right lateral (RL), left lateral (LL), posterior-to-anterior (PA).
*Newhauser et al. [39] used risk contributed by infield protons reported by Miralbell et al. and added risk contributed by stray neutrons based in phantom Monte Carlo simulations of proton CSI fields (PA cranial field, PA upper spine field, and PA lower spine field).