Evaluation of intrafraction couch shifts for proton treatment delivery in head-and-neck cancer patients: Toward optimal imaging frequency

Partial and full arc with DynamicARC technique in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for bilateral head and neck cancer: A feasibility and dosimetric study

PURPOSE

A novel proton beam delivery method known as DynamicARC spot scanning has been introduced. The current study aims to determine whether the partial proton arc technique, in conjunction with DynamicARC pencil beam scanning (PBS), can meet clinical acceptance criteria for bilateral head and neck cancer (HNC) and provide an alternative to full proton arc and traditional intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).

METHOD

The study retrospectively included anonymized CT datasets from ten patients with bilateral HNC, all of whom had previously received photon treatment. The clinical target volumes (CTV) were categorized into three levels: CTV_7000, CTV_5950, and CTV_5600. IMPT plans included three beams, whereas DynamicARC plans included dual-partial-arcs (DPA), single-partial-arc (SPA), and single-full-arc (SFA). All plans underwent robust optimization considering setup (± 3 mm) and range (± 3%) uncertainties applied to the CTVs. DynamicARC plans were evaluated against the NRG-HN009 criteria and IMPT plans using various metrics.

RESULTS

All four techniques-IMPT, DPA, SPA, and SFA-demonstrated substantial compliance with NRG-HN009 dosimetric criteria. DynamicARC produced superior dose conformity, lower hotspot, and improved homogeneity for high-risk CTV compared to IMPT, with comparable performance for intermediate- and low-risk CTVs. DynamicARC reduced the Dmean to the parotid glands by average differences of 14.5%-22.1% and to the oral cavity by an average difference of 15.75% compared to IMPT. DPA and SPA techniques achieved reductions in total integral dose of 3.7%-5.7% relative to IMPT. Overall, DPA yielded dosimetric results comparable to those of SFA while offering more conformal dose distributions and slightly better organ at risk sparing than SPA.

CONCLUSION

On the ProteusOne with a partial gantry system, DPA and SPA, in conjunction with DynamicARC PBS protons, provided clear dosimetric advantages over three-field IMPT. Future clinical implementation and further research into optimizing DynamicARC protocols are warranted to fully realize the benefits of these techniques in clinical settings.

Is noncoplanar plan more robust to inter-fractional variations than coplanar plan in treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil-beam scanning proton beams?

PURPOSE

Noncoplanar plans (NCPs) are commonly used for proton treatment of bilateral head and neck (HN) malignancies. NCP requires additional verification setup imaging between beams to correct residual errors of robotic couch motion, which increases imaging dose and total treatment time. This study compared the quality and robustness of NCPs with those of coplanar plans (CPs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Under an IRB-approved study, CPs were created retrospectively for 10 bilateral HN patients previously treated with NCPs maintaining identical beam geometry of the original plan but excluding couch rotations. Plan robustness to the inter-fractional variation (IV) of both plans was evaluated through the Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) of weekly quality assurance CT (QACT) sets (39 total). In addition, delivery efficiency for both plans was compared using total treatment time (TTT) and beam-on time (BOT).

RESULTS

No significant differences in plan quality were observed in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage (D95) or organ-at-risk (OAR) doses (p > 0.4 for all CTVs and OARs). No significant advantage of NCPs in the robustness to IV was found over CP, either. Changes in D95 of QA plans showed a linear correlation (slope = 1.006, R2  > 0.99) between NCP and CP for three CTV data points (CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3) in each QA plan (117 data points for 39 QA plans). NCPs showed significantly higher beam delivery time than CPs for TTT (539 ± 50 vs. 897 ± 142 s; p < 0.001); however, no significant differences were observed for BOT.

CONCLUSION

NCPs are not more robust to IV than CPs when treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil-beam scanning proton beams. CPs showed plan quality and robustness similar to NCPs while reduced treatment time (∼6 min). This suggests that CPs may be a more efficient planning technique for bilateral HN cancer proton therapy.

Setup Uncertainty of Pediatric Brain Tumor Patients Receiving Proton Therapy: A Prospective Study

This study quantifies setup uncertainty in brain tumor patients who received image-guided proton therapy. Patients analyzed include 165 children, adolescents, and young adults (median age at radiotherapy: 9 years (range: 10 months to 24 years); 80 anesthetized and 85 awake) enrolled in a single-institution prospective study from 2020 to 2023. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed daily to calculate and correct manual setup errors, once per course after setup correction to measure residual errors, and weekly after treatments to assess intrafractional motion. Orthogonal radiographs were acquired consecutively with CBCT for paired comparisons of 40 patients. Translational and rotational errors were converted from 6 degrees of freedom to a scalar by a statistical approach that considers the distance from the target to the isocenter. The 95th percentile of setup uncertainty was reduced by daily CBCT from 10 mm (manual positioning) to 1-1.5 mm (after correction) and increased to 2 mm by the end of fractional treatment. A larger variation existed between the roll corrections reported by radiographs vs. CBCT than for pitch and yaw, while there was no statistically significant difference in translational variation. A quantile mixed regression model showed that the 95th percentile of intrafractional motion was 0.40 mm lower for anesthetized patients (p=0.0016). Considering additional uncertainty in radiation-imaging isocentricity, the commonly used total plan robustness of 3 mm against positional uncertainty would be appropriate for our study cohort.