An effective method to reduce the interplay effects between respiratory motion and a uniform scanning proton beam irradiation for liver tumors: A case study

A Planning Comparison of IMRT vs. Pencil Beam Scanning for Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Lung Cancers

Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) has dosimetric advantages for lung cancer patients treated with external beam therapy, but is difficult for many patients to perform. Proton therapy permits sparing of the downstream organs at risk (OAR). We compared conventionally fractionated proton (p) and photon(x) plans on both free breathing (FB) and DIBH planning CTs to determine the effect of DIBH with proton therapy. We evaluated 24 plans from 6 lung cancer patients treated with photon DIBH on a prospective protocol. All patients were re-planned using pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. New plans were generated for FB datasets with both modalities. All plans were renormalized to 60 Gy. We evaluated dosimetric parameters for heart, lung and esophagus. We also compared FB_p to DIBH_x parameters to quantify how FB_p plans compare to DIBH_x plans. Significant differences were found for lung metrics V20 and mean lung dose between FB and DIBH plans regardless of treatment modality. Furthermore, lung metrics for FB_p were comparable or superior to DIBH_x, suggesting that FB protons may be a viable alternative for those patients that cannot perform DIBH with IMRT. The heart dose metrics were significantly different for the 5 out of 6 patients where the PTV overlapped the heart as DIBH moved heart out of the high dose volume. Heart dose metrics were further reduced by proton therapy. DIBH offers similar relative advantages for lung sparing for PBS as it does for IMRT but the magnitude of the DIBH related gains in OAR sparing were smaller for PBS than IMRT. FB_p plans offer similar or better lung and heart sparing compared to DIBH_x plans. For IMRT patients who have difficulty performing DIBH, FB protons may offer an alternative.

Clinical practice vs. state-of-the-art research and future visions: Report on the 4D treatment planning workshop for particle therapy - Edition 2018 and 2019

The 4D Treatment Planning Workshop for Particle Therapy, a workshop dedicated to the treatment of moving targets with scanned particle beams, started in 2009 and since then has been organized annually. The mission of the workshop is to create an informal ground for clinical medical physicists, medical physics researchers and medical doctors interested in the development of the 4D technology, protocols and their translation into clinical practice. The 10th and 11th editions of the workshop took place in Sapporo, Japan in 2018 and Krakow, Poland in 2019, respectively. This review report from the Sapporo and Krakow workshops is structured in two parts, according to the workshop programs. The first part comprises clinicians and physicists review of the status of 4D clinical implementations. Corresponding talks were given by speakers from five centers around the world: Maastro Clinic (The Netherlands), University Medical Center Groningen (The Netherlands), MD Anderson Cancer Center (United States), University of Pennsylvania (United States) and The Proton Beam Therapy Center of Hokkaido University Hospital (Japan). The second part is dedicated to novelties in 4D research, i.e. motion modelling, artificial intelligence and new technologies which are currently being investigated in the radiotherapy field.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between passive scattering versus pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Our study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes and toxicities between passive scattering (PS) proton beam therapy (PBT) and pencil-beam scanning (PBS) PBT for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The multidisciplinary team for liver cancer identified the PBT candidates who were ineligible for resection or radiofrequency ablation. We retrospectively analyzed 172 patients who received PBT for primary HCC from January 2016 to December 2017. The PS with wobbling method was applied with both breath-hold and regular breathing techniques, while the PBS method was utilized only for regular breathing techniques covering the full amplitude of respiration. To maintain the balance of the variables between the PS and PBS groups, we performed propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration for the total cohort was 14 months (range, 1-31 months). After propensity score matching, a total of 103 patients (70 in the PS group and 33 in the PBS group) were included in analysis. There were no significant differences in the rates of overall survival (OS), in-field local control (IFLC), out-field intrahepatic control (OFIHC), extrahepatic progression-free survival (EHPFS), and complete response (CR) between the matched groups. In the subgroup analyses, no subgroup showed a significant difference in IFLC between the PS and PBS groups. There was also no significant difference in the toxicity profiles between the groups.

CONCLUSION

There are no differences in oncologic outcomes, including OS, IFLC, OFIHC, EHPFS, and CR rates, or in the toxicity profiles between PS and PBS PBT for primary HCC.