Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration

Dosimetric accuracy of proton therapy for chordoma patients with titanium implants

PURPOSE

To investigate dosimetric errors in proton therapy treatment planning due to titanium implants, and to determine how these affect postoperative passively scattered proton therapy for chordoma patients with orthopedic hardware.

METHODS

The presence of titanium hardware near the tumor may affect the dosimetric accuracy of proton therapy. Artifacts in the computed tomography (CT) scan can cause errors in the proton stopping powers used for dose calculation, which are derived from CT numbers. Also, clinical dose calculation algorithms may not accurately simulate proton beam transport through the implants, which have very different properties as compared to human tissue. The authors first evaluated the impact of these two main issues. Dose errors introduced by metal artifacts were studied using phantoms with and without titanium inserts, and patient scans on which a metal artifact reduction method was applied. Pencil-beam dose calculations were compared to models of nuclear interactions in titanium and Monte Carlo simulations. Then, to assess the overall impact on treatment plans for chordoma, the authors compared the original clinical treatment plans to recalculated dose distributions employing both metal artifact reduction and Monte Carlo methods.

RESULTS

Dose recalculations of clinical proton fields showed that metal artifacts cause range errors up to 6 mm distal to regions affected by CT artifacts. Monte Carlo simulations revealed dose differences >10% in the high-dose area, and range differences up to 10 mm. Since these errors are mostly local in nature, the large number of fields limits the impact on target coverage in the chordoma treatment plans to a small decrease of dose homogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of titanium implants, CT metal artifacts and the approximations of pencil-beam dose calculations cause considerable errors in proton dose calculation. The spatial distribution of the errors however limits the overall impact on passively scattered proton therapy for chordoma.

Physics controversies in proton therapy

The physical characteristics of proton beams are appealing for cancer therapy. The rapid increase in operational and planned proton therapy facilities may suggest that this technology is a "plug-and-play" valuable addition to the arsenal of the radiation oncologist and medical physicist. In reality, the technology is still evolving, so planning and delivery of proton therapy in patients face many practical challenges. This review article discusses the current status of proton therapy treatment planning and delivery techniques, indicates current limitations in dealing with range uncertainties, and proposes possible developments for proton therapy and supplementary technology to try to realize the actual potential of proton therapy.

Proton therapy verification with PET imaging

Proton therapy is very sensitive to uncertainties introduced during treatment planning and dose delivery. PET imaging of proton induced positron emitter distributions is the only practical approach for in vivo, in situ verification of proton therapy. This article reviews the current status of proton therapy verification with PET imaging. The different data detecting systems (in-beam, in-room and off-line PET), calculation methods for the prediction of proton induced PET activity distributions, and approaches for data evaluation are discussed.

Statistical assessment of proton treatment plans under setup and range uncertainties

PURPOSE

To evaluate a method for quantifying the effect of setup errors and range uncertainties on dose distribution and dose-volume histogram using statistical parameters; and to assess existing planning practice in selected treatment sites under setup and range uncertainties.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty passively scattered proton lung cancer plans, 10 prostate, and 1 brain cancer scanning-beam proton plan(s) were analyzed. To account for the dose under uncertainties, we performed a comprehensive simulation in which the dose was recalculated 600 times per given plan under the influence of random and systematic setup errors and proton range errors. On the basis of simulation results, we determined the probability of dose variations and calculated the expected values and standard deviations of dose-volume histograms. The uncertainties in dose were spatially visualized on the planning CT as a probability map of failure to target coverage or overdose of critical structures.

RESULTS

The expected value of target coverage under the uncertainties was consistently lower than that of the nominal value determined from the clinical target volume coverage without setup error or range uncertainty, with a mean difference of -1.1% (-0.9% for breath-hold), -0.3%, and -2.2% for lung, prostate, and a brain cases, respectively. The organs with most sensitive dose under uncertainties were esophagus and spinal cord for lung, rectum for prostate, and brain stem for brain cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically feasible robustness plan analysis tool based on direct dose calculation and statistical simulation has been developed. Both the expectation value and standard deviation are useful to evaluate the impact of uncertainties. The existing proton beam planning method used in this institution seems to be adequate in terms of target coverage. However, structures that are small in volume or located near the target area showed greater sensitivity to uncertainties.

The clinical impact of uncertainties in the mean excitation energy of human tissues during proton therapy

Uncertainties in the estimated mean excitation energies (I-values) needed for calculating proton stopping powers can be in the order of 10-15%, which introduces a fundamental limitation in the accuracy of proton range determination. Previous efforts have quantified shifts in proton depth dose distributions due to I-value uncertainties in water and homogenous tissue phantoms. This study is the first to quantify the clinical impact of I-value uncertainties on proton dose distributions within patient geometries. A previously developed Geant4 based Monte Carlo code was used to simulate a proton treatment plan for three patients (prostate, pancreases, and liver) with varying tissue I-values. A uniform variation study was conducted in which the tissue I-values were varied by ±5% and ±10% of the nominal values as well as a probabilistic variation study in which the I-values were randomly sampled according to a normal distribution with the mean equal to the nominal I-value and a standard deviation of 5 and 10% of the nominal values. Modification of tissue I-values impacted both the proton range and SOBP width. R(90) range shifts up to 7.7 mm (4.4.%) and R(80) range shifts up to 4.8 mm (1.9%) from the nominal range were recorded. Modulating the tissue I-values by 10% the nominal value resulted in up to a 3.5% difference mean dose in the target volumes and organs at risk compared to the nominal case. The range and dose differences were the largest for the deeper-seated prostate and pancreas cases. The treatments that were simulated with randomly sampled I-values resulted in range and dose differences that were generally within the upper and lower bounds set by the 10% uniform variations. This study demonstrated the impact of I-value uncertainties on patient dose distributions. Clearly, sub-millimeter precision in proton therapy would necessitate a reduction in I-value uncertainties to ensure an efficacious clinical outcome.