Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Robust mixed electron-photon radiation therapy planning for soft tissue sarcoma
Veng Jean Heng1, Monica Serban2,3, Marc-André Renaud4
1Department of Physics and Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Background:
Mixed electron-photon beam radiation therapy (MBRT) is an emerging technique in which external electron and photon beams are simultaneously optimized into a single treatment plan. MBRT exploits the steep dose falloff and high surface dose of electrons while maintaining target conformity by leveraging the sharp penumbra of photons.
Purpose:
This study investigates the dosimetric benefits of MBRT for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients.
Material And Methods:
A retrospective cohort of 22 STS of the lower extremity treated with conventional photon-based Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) were replanned with MBRT. Both VMAT and MBRT treatments were planned on the Varian TrueBeam linac using the Millenium multi-leaf collimator. No electron applicator, cutout or additional collimating devices were used for electron beams of MBRT plans. MBRT plans were optimized to use a combination of 6 MV photons and five electron energies (6, 9, 12, 16, 20 MeV) by a robust column generation algorithm. Electron beams in this study were planned at standard 100 cm source-axis distance (SAD). The dose to the clinical target volume (CTV), bone, normal tissue strip and other organs-at-risk (OARs) were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Results:
As part of the original VMAT treatment, tissue-equivalent bolus was required in 10 of the 22 patients. MBRT plans did not require bolus by virtue of the higher electron entrance dose. CTV coverage by the prescription dose was found to be clinically equivalent between plans of either modality: (MBRT) = 97.9 ± 0.2% versus (VMAT) = 98.1 ± 0.6% (p=0.34). Evaluating the absolute paired difference between doses to OARs in MBRT and VMAT plans, we observed lower to normal tissue in MBRT plans by 14.9 ± 3.2% ( ). Similarly, to bone was found to be decreased by 8.2 ± 4.0% ( ) of the bone volume.
Conclusion:
For STS with subcutaneous involvement, MBRT offers statistically significant sparing of OARs without sacrificing target coverage when compared to VMAT. MBRT plans are deliverable on conventional linacs without the use of electron applicators, shortened source-to-surface distance (SSD) or bolus. This study shows that MBRT is a logistically feasible technique with clear dosimetric benefits.
