DailyTech - Hitachi Gets FDA Clearance For Radiation Therapy Alternative

Submit News

Science Hitachi Gets FDA Clearance For Radiation Therapy Alternative
Sven Olsen (Blog) - March 21, 2006 5:34 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

32 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Mar 23 at 5:11 PM

PROBEAT, a more efficient alternative to standard radio-therapy developed by Hitachi, is making its way to Proton Therapy centers

Early this morning Genetic Engineering News reported the announcement of Hitachi receiving the thumbs up from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to produce their PROBEAT Proton Beam Therapy System as an alternative to current radiation therapies.

According to the press release, the "PROBEAT system is in its final stages of construction at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center" which is located in Houston. The therapy center also plans to begin use of the PROBEAT system on patients this coming May.

Many of you may not be so familiar with proton beam technology in medical applications, however, the research and technology has been around since the middle of 20th century. According to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center:

PROBEAT is a medical device designed to produce and deliver a proton beam for the treatment of patients with localized tumors and other conditions susceptible to treatment by radiation. PROBEAT is a proton beam irradiation system, which provides a therapeutic proton beam for clinical treatment. It is designed to deliver a proton beam with the prescribed dose and dose distribution to the prescribed patient treatment site. The equipment is comprised of two main components. One is a beam delivery system whose primary responsibility is to ensure that the above listed prescription parameters are properly delivered. The other is the equipment necessary to generate the proton beam and direct it to the beam delivery system.

M.D. Anderson's Proton Therapy Center website has more information on proton therapy and an informative FAQ section answering questions such as how proton therapy works more efficiently to destroy cancer cells compared to traditional methods.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Proton therapy

By Ackbar on 3/21/2006 6:19:10 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
PROBEAT Proton Beam Therapy System as an alternative to radiation therapy

Proton therapy is a form of radiation treatment, its just an alternative to traditional Gamma or X-ray (linear accelerator based) radiation therapies. The dose created by gamma and x-ray radiation drops off linearly as a function of depth into the tissue. Proton radiation does not drop off linearly but actually delivers the majority of its dose at a certain depth (determined by the energy of the protons).

Proton therapy is really going to be great once it reaches the point where it penetrates the medical industry. Currently its not a viable form of treatment at all cancer centers because it requires a GIGANTIC machine be created and also a huge investment on the part of the facility. I'm glad this became FDA approved though, it will likely slowly replace linear accelerators in the hospital eventually (but first smaller particle accelerators have to be created to accelerate protons)!

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/21/2006 11:18:30 PM , Rating: 2

> Proton therapy is a form of radiation treatment...

Quite so. What's mildly amusing is the fact that both the links in the article mentioned this as well.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/22/2006 1:57:15 AM , Rating: 2

Ackbar,
Proton therapies will never be able to replace linear accelerators. Proton dose distributions, like you said, distribute the majority of it's dose at a certain depth due to the fact that it is a particle with mass (unlike photons with gamma or xrays). It has it uses, but is not very versatile due to that fact.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Ackbar on 3/22/2006 9:11:05 AM , Rating: 2

Correct, dose deposition due to the bragg peak. While I agree that it will seems impossible for linacs to be replaced by protons, I think the advent of new techniques for proton acceleration will change that. Specifically newer methods are currently under development such as acceleration induced by lasers, etc. I must admit though that without truly SIGNIFICANT new acceleration techniques replacement of linacs with protons is just a pipe dream.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/22/2006 9:14:28 PM , Rating: 2

I agree, there would have to be a very significant change in the acceleration techniques in order for proton therapy to feasibly become any more versatile than what it already it (which isn't very).

Perhaps some type of intensity modulation type of proton therapy like the one already used with xray therapies?

Seems a very long way off though...

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Ackbar on 3/22/2006 10:00:36 PM , Rating: 2

IMRT for proton therapy? Hmmm... who knows... although I'm not sure if that's even necessary. I've seen equivalent plans for x-ray IMRT versus proton and it does seem that proton plans are already very conformal. I'm not familiar with how fields are shaped with current proton therapies though.

BTW- are you a medical physicist or radiation oncologist or something else?

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/22/2006 10:50:09 PM , Rating: 2

I'll never tell ;)

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/22/2006 2:03:51 PM , Rating: 2

> "Proton dose distributions, like you said, distribute the majority of it's dose at a certain depth "

But the depth is adjustable by varying the proton energy. This isn't my field, but I don't see why this would make it -less- flexible.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/22/2006 9:10:04 PM , Rating: 2

"I don't see why this would make it -less- flexible."

Yes, increasing the applied energy to the proton does directly affect the depth in which the proton deposits it's energy. But the fact that it is a particle with mass also directly affect the amount of energy that can be transferred to it, not to mention the volume of tissue that can be treated (which would be a limit of the mechanics of the acceleration).

This is my area of expertise and I find it hard to concieve treating any diffuse, large and/or deeply centralized tumours with this therapy. We use this type of therapy very commonly will very small ocular lesions.

But then again, maybe I'm too old and set in my ways to think outside of the box ;)

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Ackbar on 3/22/2006 10:07:00 PM , Rating: 2

Well, proton therapy will definitely be useful to complement treatments that require high dose gradients and/or conformality (ie. stereotactic radiosurgery).

Obviously, cases such as whole body irradiation won't really stand to benefit from proton therapies. You wouldn't use a precision guided missle to do the job of a nuke... But with the "coming of IGRT" supposed more and more cases can use higher dose gradients/conformality... I guess only time will tell.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/22/2006 10:49:11 PM , Rating: 2

Agreed. The future of proton treatments in precision therapy is intrigueing.

Radiation Therapy seems to be a field developing almost as fast as technology allows. Only time will tell.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/22/2006 10:11:59 PM , Rating: 2

> " But the fact that it is a particle with mass also directly affect the amount of energy that can be transferred to it..."

The amount per energy per particle, but it doesn't limit the total amount. You can always increase beam flux or exposure time.

A decade from now, I can see proton therapy being combined with reverse-tomography techniques, to automatically irradiate any arbitrary 3D section of a body.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/22/2006 10:43:59 PM , Rating: 2

But the total energy does not dictate the depth in which the energy is deposited by the proton. It is the energy applied to each particle.
Given X amount of energy, where X remains constant, varying the flux (fluence) or exposure time will not affect the effective treatment depth. This argument is true with massless unchharged particles (i.e. photons), but is not so in this case.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/22/2006 11:28:51 PM , Rating: 2

> "But the total energy does not dictate the depth in which the energy is deposited by the proton"

Of course, but Ackbar was stating that the amount of energy applied to a tissue volume was somehow limited in particle therapy. I was merely pointing out that this was controllable through flux and exposure.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Ackbar on 3/23/2006 12:49:23 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
dose at a certain depth (determined by the energy of the protons)

I was saying that the depth was determined by the energy of the protons. For proton therapy, in order to create a clinically feasible dose distribution, the energy of the incident protons are varied to create dose at varying depths. The dose (energy/mass) is defintely dependent on the particle (and energy) flux as well, exposure (air ionization) is not really the quantity of interest for radiation therapy.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/23/2006 8:24:05 AM , Rating: 2

I'm still not seeing why you think its less flexible than standard radiation therapy.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Ackbar on 3/23/2006 9:16:20 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
But the depth is adjustable by varying the proton energy. This isn't my field, but I don't see why this would make it -less- flexible.

I'm not seeing where I even said that it was less flexible. I've consistently said that it was a great tool with high dose gradients and potential for increased conformality. You can use it for whole body irradiation let's say, but like I said before that would be like using a precision guided missle to destroy a country. You could do it, but it would take more time than it would be worth.

It also depends what you mean by standard radiation therapy. Typically radiation therapy encompasses teletherapy and brachytherapy. Within teletherapy there is linac based, Co-60, orthovoltage, etc. Some are better than others for various purposes. The most widely used machine is the linac, and due to costs/size this is the best bang for buck at the moment.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/23/2006 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 2

> "I'm not seeing where I even said that it was less flexible"

You said it was "not very versatile" due to it depositing the majority of its energy at a fixed depth. Homer went further to claim a maximum amount of energy which could be deposited, due to the particle nature of the beam.

Given that depth is -adjustable- and the total dose is as well, I still fail to see where proton therapy would be less flexible. Obviously for irradiating very large areas, conventional methods may be more convenient, but I see that as a very different thing.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Ackbar on 3/23/2006 10:42:57 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
It has it uses, but is not very versatile due to that fact.

- Homer J Simpson

Umm... He said that, not me. I'm still not sure why you think that I don't think that proton therapy is versatile/flexible. I reread my posts, and I don't see how I even imply that.

I think that protons can do everything well that linac radiation can do EXCEPT do skin (surface) irradation. For that, electron irradiation (electron beam from the linac) is typically used. I think its physically possible to create a good surface dose with a proton beam, but not feasible with the proton machines available. You'd likely have to have a very high flux to account for the low energy protons you'd have to use. I'm not sure about this though.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/23/2006 10:50:48 AM , Rating: 2

> "Umm... He said that, not me."

Sorry, after his post stating that, you said "correct" and went on with a reply I assumed meant you were agreeing with him. My apologies.

In any case, I now direct my question at Homer himself.

> "You'd likely have to have a very high flux to account for the low energy protons you'd have to use.."

Sounds reasonable to me. Out of curiosity, how often is surface irradiation called for in actual therapy?

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/22/2006 10:53:33 PM , Rating: 2

"A decade from now, I can see proton therapy being combined with reverse-tomography techniques, to automatically irradiate any arbitrary 3D section of a body. "

Maybe a decade from now, through genetic engineering, cancer will no longer exist, and I will be out of a job!

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By masher2

(blog) on 3/22/2006 11:29:53 PM , Rating: 2

A decade from now? Not a chance...I think your employment is safe for at least the next 25-30 years.

Parent

RE: Proton therapy

By Homer Jay Simpson on 3/23/2006 12:09:13 AM , Rating: 2

Hopefully I'll be retired by then :)

Parent

Think outside the box

By kevinm207 on 3/22/2006 3:45:07 PM , Rating: 2

I think the real question here is; “should we even be using radiation/chemotherapy treatment?” Modern orthodox medicine has a “dark ages” approach to cancer: Cut, burn, poison. There are natural treatments for cancer and other diseases/deficiencies that show much more promising results and absolutely no adverse affects...

RE: Think outside the box

By masher2

(blog) on 3/22/2006 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2

> "There are natural treatments for cancer and other diseases/deficiencies that show much more promising results "

Absolutely amazing...do you believe in the tooth fairy and the healing powers of magnetic bracelets as well?

Parent

RE: Think outside the box

By kevinm207 on 3/23/2006 9:17:48 AM , Rating: 2

I believe in GOD , and he said in Genesis 1:29: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Herbs have been used since the beginning of time to treat illness. GOD gave us everything that we need. We simply need to alter our diets and actually nourish our body. Our body was designed to fight disease, if we give it the tools to fight. Those tools are what we call vitamins, minerals, enzymes, etc… And of course there are many other things we don’t even understand about nutrition and the complex design of plants and the human body. Taking care of our body and giving it what it needs is the answer to diseases (remember Scurvy was a Vitamin C deficiency.) In fact, most things we dub “disease” are simply deficiencies.

Parent

RE: Think outside the box

By masher2

(blog) on 3/23/2006 10:33:48 AM , Rating: 2

> "Herbs have been used since the beginning of time to treat illness..."

And people have died since the beginning of time, due to those herbs having little or no effect whatsoever.

> " GOD gave us everything that we need..."

Including brains, which we used to design a proton accelerator to treat cancer.

> "In fact, most things we dub “disease” are simply deficiencies...."

Sorry pal, but cancer, heart disease, and avian flu are not "deficiencies". And you can take all the vitamin C you want, it's not going to help you.

If you want to see a witch doctor when you have cancer, feel free. Personally, I'll take science over superstition.

Parent

Magicwand?

By beemercer on 3/21/2006 5:46:36 PM , Rating: 1

I wonder if Hitachi will intergrate their 'magicwand' technology into this.

Sorry for the insensitive comment I'm about to write

By FerrellKitten on 3/21/06, Rating: -1

RE: Sorry for the insensitive comment I'm about to write

By oTAL

(blog) on 3/22/2006 12:28:37 PM , Rating: 1

So sorry I can't further lower the score to your stupid and, more than anything else, absolutelly POINTLESS comment. What's going on inside that little brain of yours? :s

Parent

RE: Sorry for the insensitive comment I'm about to write

By beemercer on 3/22/2006 2:46:21 PM , Rating: 2

Do you understand jokes you fucking fag.

Parent

RE: Sorry for the insensitive comment I'm about to write

By oTAL

(blog) on 3/23/2006 5:11:23 PM , Rating: 2

I do understand them... it's just a shame it isn't even mildly amusing... your concept of a joke eludes me, and your use of highly intelectual laguage like that only make my opinion about you rise.....

Parent