Comparative proton versus photon treatment planning for the Medicare Medical Treatment Overseas Program: The Royal Adelaide Hospital experience
Introduction Australia’s first proton beam therapy (PBT) service, The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research, is scheduled to open in the near future providing PBT for patients closer to home. Patients currently access Commonwealth funding for PBT via the Medicare Medical Treatment...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 2020-10, Vol.64 (5), p.682-688 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
Australia’s first proton beam therapy (PBT) service, The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research, is scheduled to open in the near future providing PBT for patients closer to home. Patients currently access Commonwealth funding for PBT via the Medicare Medical Treatment Overseas Program (MTOP). Proton versus photon treatment planning is a pre‐requisite for the MTOP application. The Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) Department of Radiation Oncology has been providing this since 2016. We aim to provide a descriptive overview of our proton versus photon treatment planning process, presenting a summary of the comparative planning results and the treatment pathways selected for the patients referred.
Methods
All patients referred to the RAH for comparative planning between January 2016 and December 2018 were included in the analysis. Comparative plans were generated for each case using Pinnacle or Eclipse treatment planning systems. The planning techniques used and plan quality metrics were reported.
Results
Forty three patients were referred for comparative planning. The age range was 1–63 years, with the majority (72%) being paediatric patients (age ≤18 years). Of the 19 cases that have been submitted to MTOP, 16 have been accepted and 3 denied. Two of the accepted cases chose not to travel abroad for PBT. The other 14 cases have received PBT overseas.
Conclusions
The RAH has provided an important service to demonstrate the dosimetric difference between PBT and photon therapy for Australian patients, an important step in supporting the funding of patients for treatment overseas. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1754-9477 1754-9485 |
DOI: | 10.1111/1754-9485.13018 |