Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Comparative Dosimetric Study of Proton and Photon Therapy in Stereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation for Ventricular Tachycardia

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.18433 v2 pith:67AS6X67 submitted 2025-01-30 physics.med-ph

classification physics.med-ph
keywords protontherapyphotonstarcoveragedmeanoarstarget
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Purpose: VT is a life-threatening arrhythmia commonly treated with catheter ablation; however, some cases remain refractory to conventional treatment. STAR has emerged as a non-invasive option for such patients. While photon-based STAR has shown efficacy, proton therapy offers potential advantages due to its superior dose conformity and sparing of critical OARs, including the heart itself. This study aims to investigate and compare the dosimetry between proton and photon therapy for VT, focusing on target coverage and OAR sparing. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on a cohort of 34 VT patients who received photon STAR. Proton STAR plans were generated using robust optimization in RayStation to deliver the same prescription dose of 25 Gy in a single fraction while minimizing dose to OARs. Dosimetric metrics, including D99, D95, Dmean, and D0.03cc, were extracted for critical OARs and VAS. Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to assess normality, followed by paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for statistical comparisons between modalities, with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple comparisons. Results: Proton and photon plans achieved comparable target coverage, with VAS D95 of 24.1 +/- 1.2 Gy vs. 24.7 +/- 1.0 Gy (p=0.294). Proton therapy significantly reduced OAR doses, including heart Dmean (3.6 +/- 1.5 Gy vs. 5.5 +/- 2.0 Gy, p<0.001), lungs Dmean (1.6 +/- 1.5 Gy vs. 2.1 +/- 1.4 Gy, p<0.001), and esophagus Dmean (0.3 +/- 0.6 Gy vs. 1.6 +/- 1.3 Gy, p<0.001), while maintaining optimal target coverage. Conclusion: Proton therapy for STAR demonstrates significant dosimetric advantages in sparing the heart and other critical OARs compared to photon therapy for VT, while maintaining equivalent target coverage. These findings highlight the potential of proton therapy to reduce treatment-related toxicity and improve outcomes for VT patients.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools