November/December 1989 Fermilab Report is published by the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Publications Office. Editor: R. B. Fenner Contributing Editors: D. Beatty J. R. Biel C.N. Brown R. A. Carrigan, Jr. J.P. Dowd A. Elwyn E. Malamud S. Pordes R. Rubinstein Editorial Assistant: S.Novack The presentation of material in Fermilab Report is not intended to substitute for nor preclude its publication in a professional journal, and references to articles herein should not be cited in such journals. Contributions, comments, and requests for copies should be addressed to the Fermilab Publications Office, P.O. Box 500, MS 107, Batavia, IL 60510 U.S.A. (708) 840-3278. TECHPUBS@FNAL. 89/11 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory On the cover: Barbara Bennett and Brian Pientak of F ermilab' s Neutron Therapy Facility test the operation of a new magnetic contouring device. Donald Shea, shown on the left, developed its software. The pencil-like probe senses a magnetic field generated by a source and the position of the pencil point is displayed in JD coordinates on the screen. The wand traces out a contour of a patient which is then utilized in calculating the dose distribution. The intersecting beam of laser light defines the central plane for the entry of the neutron beam. See story on page 1. Fermllab Is operated by the Universities Research Association, Inc. under contract with the United States Depanment of Energy irmilab report November/December 1989 Table of Contents NEUTRON THERAPY - A PROGRESS REPORT page 1 Arlene Lennox THE FERMILAB WILSON FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM page4 Rolland P. Johnson LAB liQIE§. Michael Witherell Awarded Panofsky Prize page8 New Computing Division at Fermilab page 8 - Phil Stebbings Fermilab's Prairie Interpretive Trail Named for Margaret Pearson page 10 - Barbara Lach Fermilab Director John Peoples Delivers Keynote Address at AEE Meeting page 11 - William Riches Christopher T. Hill Named to APS Fellowship page 12 MANlJSCRIPTS ~ ~ Experimental Physics Results page 13 General Particle Physics page 13 Accelerator Physics page 14 Theoretical Physics page 14 Theoretical Astrophysics page 16 Computing page-17 Other page 17 COLLOQUIA. LECTIJRES. ~ SEMINARS page 17 Index to 1989 Fermilab Report Articles page 19 I!AIEa IQ REMEMBER page 22 NEUTRON THERAPY • A PROGRESS REPORT by Arlene Lennox adiation has been used to treat certain forms of cancer since Roentgen's discovery of x-rays in 1895. Radiation sources commonly used in hospitals today include cobalt and electron linacs which produce photons by bombarding tungsten with electron beams having energies from 4 to 25 MeV. Clinical research has shown that certain tumors cannot be controlled by photon treatment. Radiation oncologists classify these tumors as "radioresistant" tumors. Unlike photon therapy, neutron therapy induces irreparable changes in the chromosome structure independent of the metabolic or biochemical state of the cells. For the past 25 years there has been an international clinical research effort to determine whether neutrons could be used to control otherwise radioresistant tumors. Funded by the National Cancer Institute, Fermilab's Neutron Therapy Facility (NTF) began treating patients having radioresistant, inoperable tumors in 1976. The neutron beam was produced by bombarding beryllium with 66-MeV pro­ tons from the Linac. A freight elevator located about halfway down the Linac Gallery was converted into a treatment room so that the part of a patient's body to be treated could be aligned relative to the Linac beam. At that time NTF had the highest energy neutron therapy beam in the world. Other facilities were typically using cyclotron-produced proton or deuterium beams with energies around 15 MeV. As the international group of researchers compared clinical results over a period of years it became clear that better local control, with fewer side effects, was achieved with the higher energy beams [l]. Consequently, facilities having lower energy machines either stopped treating patients or upgraded to higher energy accelerators. In 1988, the National Accelerator Center in South Africa began treating patients using a 66-MeV proton beam from a separated-sector cyclotron. As of this writing, Catholic University of Louvain is using a 65-MeV proton beam, Clatterbridge Hospital in England has a 62-MeV beam, and the University of Washington in Seattle is using a 50-MeV proton beam. Several European facilities are in the process of upgrading to 65 MeV. Fermilab's work has set the standard for other facilities worldwide! A summary of international clinical results for long-term local control of radioresistant, inoperable tumors is shown in Table 1. Though the treatment is not 100% effective it should be noted that, at least presently, there is no better treat- The author is with the Fermilab Neutron Therapy Facility. pagel ment for these tumor types. In addition, an eight-year study has shown significant improvement in long-term survival of patients receiving neutron therapy for advanced carcinoma of the prostate [2]. The results of this study are not included in Table 1 because advanced prostate cancer does respond to photon therapy in some cases. Table 1 Control rates for neutron therapy of radioresistant, inoperable tumors (international experience through 1987) Tumor Type Control Rate Salivary gland tumors 71% Sarcoma of bone 66% Soft tissue sarcomas 50% Melanoma 71% Recto-sigmoid cancers 33% Bladder cancers 48% In 1985, after we had treated 1300 patients, officials at the National Cancer Institute decided that the efficacy of neutron therapy had been established and that research funds would be better spent in other areas, such as developing and testing new chemotherapeutic drugs. Hence, they did not renew our research grant. Both the Laboratory and the physicians working at NTF were committed to keeping this mode of treatment available for patients. The physicians formed a partnership, the Midwest Institute for Neutron Therapy, which operated the facility on a fee-for-service basis under a contract with the Universities Research Association (URA). Once again, NTF took the lead in moving neutron therapy from an experimental modality to being the treatment of choice for certain radio­ resistant tumors. Convincing Medicare and the other medical insurers to cover the cost of treatment was a non-trivial project, but we have succeeded and have made the way easier for other facilities that are now beginning to offer neutron therapy on a fee-for-service basis. A further proof that this once-experimental treatment is becoming accepted in the medical community is the fact that Rush­ Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center has agreed to collaborate with URA in operating the facility. Over 500 patients have been treated since the grant was terminated. We continue to see about 500 follow-up patients each year at no additional cost to the patient. Though other facilities are beginning to approach Fermilab's capability of providing relatively high proton energies for neutron therapy, our facility has the highest dose rate because we can take advantage of the high proton current available in the Fermilab Linac. Facilities using cyclotrons are limited by practi- page2 cal problems such as higher power requirements and higher radiation levels. A high dose rate is important because it minimizes the amount of time a patient must remain immobilized during treatment and increases the number of patients that can be treated each day. From a financial point of view it is important because proton accelerators used for neutron therapy can also be used to produce short-lived, medically useful radioisotopes. Facilities using cyclotrons for therapy and isotope production have found that the two uses interfere with each other. Some are in the process of purchasing a second cyclotron to satisfy the requirements of both activities. Our experience in using the Linac for both high-energy physics and neutron therapy by means of a fast switching magnet, coupled with new technology that can dramatically reduce the size of a 66-MeV proton linac, has led to the proposal that new neutron therapy facilities should use a linac, rather than a cyclotron, as the proton source [3]. Once again, Fermilab is taking the lead: this time by finding a way to make neutron therapy practical and cost effective in a hospital setting. References [1] T. Griffin, T. Pajak, G. Laramore, L. Davis, Analysis of Neutron Radiotherapy Treatment Complications, Bull. Cancer(Paris), 1986, Vol 73, 5, pp. 582-586. [2] K. J. Russell, G. E. Laramore, J. M. Krall, F. J. Thomas, M. H. Maor, F. R. Hendrickson, J. N. Krieger, and T. W. Griffin, Eight Years Experience With Neutron Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Stages C and D Prostate Cancer: Updated Results of the RTOG 7704 Randomized Clinical Trial, The Prostate, Vol 11, 1987, pp. 183-193. [3] A. J. Lennox, F. R. Hendrickson, D. A. Swenson, R. A. Winje, and D. E. Young, Proton Linac for Hospital-Based Fast Neutron Therapy and Radioisotope Production, Proceedings of the International Heavy Particle Workshop, Villigen, Switzerland, Sept., 1989 and Fermilab TM-1622. page3 THE FERMILAB WILSON FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM by Rolland P. Johnson ver the last 12 years, the Wilson Fellowship has attracted some of the best young researchers in high energy and accelerator physics to Fermilab. The @award was created by Leon Lederman to honor Fermilab's first director, Rctbert R. Wilson and it is typically awarded to one or two individuals per year. The award is for three years, extendable for another two, and has a stipend that is meant to be competitive with the best university assistant professorship pay scales. Additional funds are available for travel, publications, and computing. In the spirit of providing the most desirable position available, there are no constraints on the research that a Wilson Fellow may pursue. Fellows are encouraged to spend all of their time on their research and there are no required laboratory duties to distract from this effort.