A Comparison of Two BNCT Treatment Planning Programs
There are two current ongoing phase-I BNCT clinical trials in the United States for GBM,1,2 one in Europe,3 and several protocols in Japan.4 The two U.S. sites, Harvard/MIT and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), employ two different treatment planning systems, MacNCTPlan5,6 and BNCT_RTPE,7,8 developed respectively at Harvard/MIT, and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Both of these programs generate patient specific models from CT or MRI images which are used in neutron and photon transport calculations of dose rates within the patient’s head (or any other body part). These programs also allow visualization of dose rate distributions by superimposing the isodose-rate contours over the patient’s CT or MRI images, and construction of the dose volume histograms (DVHs) allowing the medical physicist and radiation oncologist to compare combinations of radiation beam orientations and weights. These two programs differ in the method of model composition and synthesis, user interface, neutron and photon cross sections, and Monte Carlo algorithms used in radiation transport calculations. Each of these differences is a potential source of discrepancies in calculated dose rates. The comparison of these two systems, since they are also used by other international BNCT researchers, is a step toward standardization of BNCT treatment planning.
KeywordsEurope Boron Oncol
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P. Busse, I. Kaplan, R. Zamenhof, O. Harling, J. Kaplan, C. Chuang, J. Goorley, W.S. Kiger III, K. Riley, L. Tang, G. Solares, and M. Palmer, “ BNCT for Globlastoma Multiforme and Intracranial Metastatic Melomana: Clinical Results of the Harvard/MIT Phase I Trial, (these proceedings)Google Scholar
- 2.A.Z. Diaz, A.D. Chanana, J. Capala, M. Chadha, J.A. Coderre, E.H. Elowitz, J. Iwai, D.D. Joel, H.B. Liu, R. Ma, N. Pendzick, N.S. Peress, M.S. Shady, D.N. Slatkin, G.W. Tyson, and L. Wielopolski, Boron neutron capture therapy for glioblastoma multiforme: results from the initial phase I/II dose escalation studies, (these proceedings)Google Scholar
- 3.K. Hideghety, W. Sauerwein, M. de Vries, F. Grochulla, C. Goetz, K. Haselsberger, P. Pacquis, J. Heimans, J. Wolbers, R. Moss, R. Huiskamp, F. Stecher-Rasmussen, J. Rassow, S. Garbe, H. Fankhauser, and D. Gabel,” Report on the First Patient Group of the European Phase I Trial (EORTC Protocol 11961) at the High Flux Reactor PETTEN (these proceedings).Google Scholar
- 4.Y. Nakagawa, P. Kyonghon, K. Kitamura, T. Kageji, and T. Minobe, “Long Term Follow Up In Patients Who Underwent Boron-Neutron Capture Therapy” (these proceedings).Google Scholar
- 6.W.S. Kiger III, R.G. Zamenhof, G.R. Solares, E.L. Redmond II, and C. Yam. “MacNCTPlan: An Improved Macintosh-Based Treatment Planning Program,” Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc. 75:38, 1996.Google Scholar
- 8.D.E. Wessol, R.S. Babcock, F.J. Wheeler, G.J. Harkin, L.L. Voss, and M.W. Frandson, “BNCTrtpe: BNCT Radiation Treatment Planning Environment Users Manual Version 2.2”, url http://id.inel.gov/cart/rtpe-manual/Google Scholar
- 9.J.F. Briesmester, Ed. “MCNP-a general Monte Carlo N—particle transport code,” v. 4B, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-12625-M Version 4B, March 1997.Google Scholar