Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice

Feasibility and robustness of dose painting by numbers in proton therapy with contour-driven plan optimization

PURPOSE

To prove the ability of protons to reproduce a dose gradient that matches a dose painting by numbers (DPBN) prescription in the presence of setup and range errors, by using contours and structure-based optimization in a commercial treatment planning system.

METHODS

For two patients with head and neck cancer, voxel-by-voxel prescription to the target volume (GTVPET) was calculated from (18)FDG-PET images and approximated with several discrete prescription subcontours. Treatments were planned with proton pencil beam scanning. In order to determine the optimal plan parameters to approach the DPBN prescription, the effects of the scanning pattern, number of fields, number of subcontours, and use of range shifter were separately tested on each patient. Different constant scanning grids (i.e., spot spacing = Δx = Δy = 3.5, 4, and 5 mm) and uniform energy layer separation [4 and 5 mm WED (water equivalent distance)] were analyzed versus a dynamic and automatic selection of the spots grid. The number of subcontours was increased from 3 to 11 while the number of beams was set to 3, 5, or 7. Conventional PTV-based and robust clinical target volumes (CTV)-based optimization strategies were considered and their robustness against range and setup errors assessed. Because of the nonuniform prescription, ensuring robustness for coverage of GTVPET inevitably leads to overdosing, which was compared for both optimization schemes.

RESULTS

The optimal number of subcontours ranged from 5 to 7 for both patients. All considered scanning grids achieved accurate dose painting (1% average difference between the prescribed and planned doses). PTV-based plans led to nonrobust target coverage while robust-optimized plans improved it considerably (differences between worst-case CTV dose and the clinical constraint was up to 3 Gy for PTV-based plans and did not exceed 1 Gy for robust CTV-based plans). Also, only 15% of the points in the GTVPET (worst case) were above 5% of DPBN prescription for robust-optimized plans, while they were more than 50% for PTV plans. Low dose to organs at risk (OARs) could be achieved for both PTV and robust-optimized plans.

CONCLUSIONS

DPBN in proton therapy is feasible with the use of a sufficient number subcontours, automatically generated scanning patterns, and no more than three beams are needed. Robust optimization ensured the required target coverage and minimal overdosing, while PTV-approach led to nonrobust plans with excessive overdose. Low dose to OARs can be achieved even in the presence of a high-dose escalation as in DPBN.

Favorable patient reported outcomes following IMRT for early carcinomas of the tonsillar fossa: Results from a symptom assessment study

BACKGROUND

A questionnaire-based study was conducted to assess long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) following definitive IMRT-based treatment for early stage carcinomas of the tonsillar fossa.

METHODS

Participants had received IMRT with or without systemic therapy for squamous carcinoma of the tonsillar fossa (T1-2 and N0-2b) with a minimum follow-up of 2years. Patients completed a validated head and neck cancer-specific PRO instrument, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Symptoms were compared between treatment groups of interest and overall symptom burden was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 139 participants analyzed, 51% had received ipsilateral neck IMRT, and 62% single modality IMRT alone (no systemic therapy). There were no differences in mean severity ratings for the top-ranked individual symptoms or symptom interference for those treated with bilateral versus ipsilateral neck IMRT alone. However, 40% of those treated with bilateral versus 25% of those treated with ipsilateral neck RT alone reported moderate-to-severe levels of dry mouth (p=0.03). Fatigue, numbness/tingling, and constipation were rated more severe for those who had received systemic therapy (p<0.05 for each), but absolute differences were small. Overall, 51% had no more than mild symptom ratings across all 22 symptoms assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term patient reported symptom profile in this cohort of tonsil cancer survivors treated with definitive IMRT-based treatment showed a majority of patients with no more than mild symptoms, low symptom interference, and provides an opportunity for future comparison studies with other treatment approaches.

Three-dimensional gamma criterion for patient-specific quality assurance of spot scanning proton beams

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of full three‐dimensional (3D) gamma algorithm for spot scanning proton fields, also referred to as pencil beam scanning (PBS) fields. The difference between the full 3D gamma algorithm and a simplified two‐dimensional (2D) version was presented. Both 3D and 2D gamma algorithms are used for dose evaluations of clinical proton PBS fields. The 3D gamma algorithm was implemented in an in‐house software program without resorting to 2D interpolations perpendicular to the proton beams at the depths of measurement. Comparison between calculated and measured dose points was carried out directly using Euclidian distance in 3D space and the dose difference as a fourth dimension. Note that this 3D algorithm faithfully implemented the original concept proposed by Low et al. (1998) who described gamma criterion using 3D Euclidian distance and dose difference. Patient‐specific proton PBS plans are separated into two categories, depending on their optimization method: single‐field optimization (SFO) or multifield optimized (MFO). A total of 195 measurements were performed for 58 SFO proton fields. A MFO proton plan with four fields was also calculated and measured, although not used for treatment. Typically three different depths were selected from each field for measurements. Each measurement was analyzed by both 3D and 2D gamma algorithms. The resultant 3D and 2D gamma passing rates are then compared and analyzed. Comparison between 3D and 2D gamma passing rates of SFO fields showed that 3D algorithm does show higher passing rates than its 2D counterpart toward the distal end, while little difference is observed at depths away from the distal end. Similar phenomenon in the lateral penumbra was well documented in photon radiation therapy, and in fact brought about the concept of gamma criterion. Although 2D gamma algorithm has been shown to suffice in addressing dose comparisons in lateral penumbra for photon intensity‐modulation radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, results here showed that a full 3D algorithm is required for proton dose comparisons due to the existence of Bragg peaks and distal penumbra. A MFO proton plan with four fields was also measured and analyzed. Sharp dose gradients exist in MFO proton fields, both in the middle of the modulation and toward the most distal layers. Decreased 2D gamma passing rates at locations of high dose gradient are again observed as in the SFO fields. Results confirmed that a full 3D algorithm for gamma criterion is needed for proton PBS plan's dose comparisons. The 3D gamma algorithm is implemented by an in‐house software program. Patient‐specific proton PBS plans are measured and analyzed using both 3D and 2D gamma algorithms. For measurements performed at depths with large dose gradients along the beam direction, gamma comparison passing rates using 2D algorithm is lower than those obtained with the full 3D algorithm.

PACS number: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Jw, 87.55.de, 87.55.kd, 87.55.ne, 87.55.Qr

Comparing cone-beam CT intensity correction methods for dose recalculation in adaptive intensity-modulated photon and proton therapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Adaptive intensity-modulated photon and proton radiotherapy (IMRT and IMPT) of head and neck (H&N) cancer requires frequent three-dimensional (3D) dose calculation. We compared two approaches for dose recalculation on the basis of intensity-corrected cone-beam (CB) x-ray computed tomography (CT) images.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For nine H&N tumor patients, virtual CTs (vCT) were generated by deformable image registration of the planning CT (pCT) to the CBCT. The second intensity correction approach used population-based lookup tables for scaling CBCT intensities to the pCT HU range (CBCTLUT). IMRT and IMPT plans were generated with a commercial treatment planning system. Dose recalculations on vCT and CBCTLUT were analyzed using a (3%, 3 mm) gamma-index analysis and comparison of normal tissue and tumor dose/volume parameters. A replanning CT (rpCT) acquired within three days of the CBCT served as reference. Single field uniform dose (SFUD) proton plans were created and recalculated on vCT and CBCTLUT for proton range comparison.

RESULTS

Dose/volume parameters showed minor differences between rpCT, vCT and CBCTLUT in IMRT, but clinically relevant deviations between CBCTLUT and rpCT in the spinal cord for IMPT. Gamma-index pass-rates were found increased for vCT with respect to CBCTLUT in IMPT (by up to 21 percentage points) and IMRT (by up to 9 percentage points) for most cases. The SFUD-based proton range assessment showed improved agreement of vCT and rpCT, with 88-99% of the depth dose profiles in beam's eye view agreeing within 3 mm. For CBCTLUT, only 80-94% of the profiles fulfilled this criterion.

CONCLUSION

vCT and CBCTLUT are suitable options for dose recalculation in adaptive IMRT. In the scope of IMPT, the vCT approach is preferable.

The use of proton therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancers

External beam radiation therapy is a commonly utilized treatment modality in the management of head and neck cancer. Given the close proximity of disease to critical normal tissues and structures, the delivery of external beam radiation therapy can result in severe acute and late toxicities, even when delivered with advanced photon-based techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy. The unique physical characteristics of protons make it a promising option in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer, with the potential to improve sparing of normal tissues and/or safely escalate radiation doses. Clinical implementation will require the continued development of advanced techniques such as intensity-modulated proton therapy, using pencil beam scanning, as well as rigorous methods of quality assurance and adaptive techniques to accurately adjust to changes in anatomy due to disease response. Ultimately, the widespread adaptation and implementation of proton therapy for head and neck cancer will require direct, prospective comparisons to standard techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, with a focus on measures such as toxicity, disease control, and quality of life.

Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2015

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck (H&N) Cancers. These Insights describe the different types of particle therapy that may be used to treat H&N cancers, in contrast to traditional radiation therapy (RT) with photons (x-ray). Research is ongoing regarding the different types of particle therapy, including protons and carbon ions, with the goals of reducing the long-term side effects from RT and improving the therapeutic index. For the 2015 update, the NCCN H&N Cancers Panel agreed to delete recommendations for neutron therapy for salivary gland cancers, because of its limited availability, which has decreased over the past 2 decades; the small number of patients in the United States who currently receive this treatment; and concerns that the toxicity of neutron therapy may offset potential disease control advantages.

Technique for comprehensive head and neck irradiation using 3-dimensional conformal proton therapy

Owing to the technical and logistical complexities of matching photon and proton treatment modalities, we developed and implemented a technique of comprehensive head and neck radiation using 3-dimensional (3D) conformal proton therapy. A monoisocentric technique was used with a 30-cm snout. Cervical lymphatics were treated with 3 fields: a posterior-anterior field with a midline block and a right and a left posterior oblique field. The matchline of the 3 cervical nodal fields with the primary tumor site fields was staggered by 0.5cm. Comparative intensity-modulated photon plans were later developed for 12 previously treated patients to provide equivalent target coverage, while matching or improving on the proton plans׳ sparing of organs at risk (OARs). Dosimetry to OARs was evaluated and compared by treatment modality. Comprehensive head and neck irradiation using proton therapy yielded treatment plans with significant dose avoidance of the oral cavity and midline neck structures. When compared with the generated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, the proton treatment plans yielded statistically significant reductions in the mean and integral radiation dose to the oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, and the maximally spared parotid gland. There was no significant difference in mean dose to the lesser-spared parotid gland by treatment modality or in mean or integral dose to the spared submandibular glands. A technique for cervical nodal irradiation using 3D conformal proton therapy with uniform scanning was developed and clinically implemented. Use of proton therapy for cervical nodal irradiation resulted in large volume of dose avoidance to the oral cavity and low dose exposure to midline structures of the larynx and the esophagus, with lower mean and integral dose to assessed OARs when compared with competing IMRT plans.

ART for head and neck patients: On the difference between VMAT and IMPT

Anatomical changes in the head-and-neck (H&N) region during the course of treatment can cause deteriorated dose distributions. Different replanning strategies were investigated for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For six H&N patients two repeated computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) (CT1/MR1 at week 2 and CT2/MR2 at week 4) scans were acquired additionally to the initial planning CT/MR. Organs-at-risk (OARs) and three targets (CTV70Gy, CTV63Gy, CTV56Gy) were delineated on MRs and transferred to respective CT data set. Simultaneously integrated boost plans were created using VMAT (two arcs) and IMPT (four beams). To assess the need of replanning the initial VMAT and IMPT plans were recalculated on repeated CTs. Furthermore, VMAT and IMPT plans were replanned on the repeated CTs. A Demon algorithm was used for deformable registration of the repeated CTs with the initial CT and utilized for dose accumulation. Total dose estimations were performed to compare ART versus standard treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Dosimetric evaluation of recalculated plans on CT1 and CT2 showed increasing OAR doses for both, VMAT and IMPT. The target coverage of recalculated VMAT plans was considered acceptable in three cases, while for all IMPT plans it dropped. Adaptation of the treatment reduced D2% for brainstem by 6.7 Gy for VMAT and by 8 Gy for IMPT, for particular patients. These D2% reductions were reaching 9 Gy and 14 Gy for the spinal cord. ART improved target dose homogeneity, especially for protons, i.e. D2% decreased by up to 8 Gy while D98% increased by 1.2 Gy.

CONCLUSION

ART showed benefits for both modalities. However, as IMPT is more conformal, the magnitude of dosimetric changes was more pronounced compared to VMAT. Large anatomic variations had a severe impact on treatment plan quality for both VMAT and IMPT. ART is justified in those cases irrespective of treatment modalities.

[Current situation and perspectives of proton therapy]

Proton beam therapy is indicated as a treatment for some rare tumours and paediatric tumours because the technique allows a good local control with minimal toxicity; the growing number of centres that use proton beam therapy is associated with an increase of dosimetric and clinical data for other malignant tumours as well. This paper reviews potential indications of proton beam therapy. A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords proton beam therapy, cancer, heavy particle, charged particle. No phase III trial has been published using proton beam therapy in comparison with the best photon therapy, but numerous retrospective and dosimetric studies have revealed an advantage of proton beam therapy compared to photons, above all in tumours next to parallel organs at risk (thoracic and abdominal tumours). This could be accompanied with a better safety profile and/or a better tumoural control; numerous phase 0, I, II, III and IV studies are ongoing to examine these hypotheses in more common cancers. Use of proton beam therapy is growing for common cancers within clinical trials but some indications could be applied sooner since in silico analysis showed major advantages with this technique.

Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Robust optimization for IMPT takes setup and range uncertainties into account during plan optimization. However, anatomical changes were not prospectively included. The purpose of this study was to examine robustness and dose variation due to setup uncertainty and anatomical change in IMPT of lung cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Plans were generated with multi-field optimization based on planning target volume (MFO-PTV) and worst-case robust optimization (MFO-RO) on simulation computed tomography scans (CT0) for nine patients. Robustness was evaluated on the CT0 by computing the standard deviation of DVH (SD-DVH). Dose variations calculated on weekly CTs were compared with SD-DVH. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) change from the original plan on weekly dose was also calculated for both plans.

RESULTS

SD-DVH and dose variation on weekly CTs were both significantly lower in the MFO-RO plans than in the MFO-PTV plans for targets, lungs, and the esophagus (p<0.05). When comparing EUD for ITV between weekly and planned dose distributions, three patients and 28% of repeated CTs for MFO-RO plans, and six patients and 44% of repeated CTs for MFO-PTV plans, respectively, showed an EUD change of >5%.

CONCLUSIONS

RO in IMPT reduces the dose variation due to setup uncertainty and anatomy changes during treatment compared with PTV-based planning. However, dose variation could still be substantial; repeated imaging and adaptive planning as needed are highly recommended for IMPT of lung tumors.