Superiority in Robustness of Multifield Optimization Over Single-Field Optimization for Pencil-Beam Proton Therapy for Oropharynx Carcinoma: An Enhanced Robustness Analysis

Biological-equivalent-dose-based integrated optimization framework for fast-energy-switching Bragg peak FLASH-RT using single-beam-per-fraction

BACKGROUNDS

When comparing the delivery of all beams per fraction (ABPF) to single beam per fraction (SBPF), it is observed that SBPF not only helps meet the FLASH dose threshold but also mitigates the uncertainty with beam switching in the FLASH effect. However, SBPF might lead to a higher biological equivalent dose in 2 Gy (EQD2) for normal tissues.

PURPOSE

This study aims to develop an EQD2-based integrated optimization framework (EQD2-IOF), encompassing robust dose, delivery efficiency, and beam orientation optimization (BOO) for Bragg peak FLASH plans using the SBPF treatment schedule. The EQD2-IOF aims to enhance both dose sparing and the FLASH effect.

METHODS

A superconducting gantry was employed for fast energy switching within 27 ms, while universal range shifters were utilized to improve beam current in the implementation of FLASH plans with five Bragg peak beams. To enhance dose delivery efficiency while maintaining plan quality, a simultaneous dose and spot map optimization (SDSMO) algorithm for single field optimization was incorporated into a Bayesian optimization-based auto-planning algorithm. Subsequently, a BOO algorithm based on Tabu search was developed to select beam angle combinations (BACs) for 10 lung cases. To simultaneously consider dose sparing and FLASH effect, a quantitative model based on dose-dependent dose modification factor (DMF) was used to calculate FLASH-enhanced dose distribution. The EQD2-IOF plan was compared to the plan optimized without SDSMO using BAC selected by a medical physicist (Manual plan) in the SBPF treatment schedule. Meanwhile, the mean EQD2 in the normal tissue was evaluated for the EQD2-IOF plan in both SBPF and ABPF treatment schedules.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in D2% and D98% of the target between EQD2-IOF plans and Manual Plans. When using a minimum DMF of 0.67 and a dose threshold of 4 Gy, EQD2-IOF plans showed a significant reduction in FLASH-enhanced EQD2mean of the ipsilateral lung and normal tissue by 10.5% and 11.5%, respectively, compared to Manual plans. For normal tissues that received a dose greater than 70% of the prescription dose, using a minimum DMF of 0.7 for FLASH sparing compensated for the increase in EQD2mean resulting from replacing ABPF with SBPF schedules.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQD2-IOF can automatically optimize SBPF FLASH-RT plans to achieve optimal sparing of normal tissues. With an energy switching time of 27 ms, the loss of fractionate repairing using SBPF schedules in high-dose regions can be compensated for by the FLASH effect. However, when an energy switching time of 500 ms is utilized, the SBPF schedule needs careful consideration, as the FLASH effect diminishes with longer irradiation time.

Robustness evaluation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning: A systematic review

Compared to conventional radiotherapy using X-rays, proton therapy, in principle, allows better conformity of the dose distribution to target volumes, at the cost of greater sensitivity to physical, anatomical, and positioning uncertainties. Robust planning, both in terms of plan optimization and evaluation, has gained high visibility in publications on the subject and is part of clinical practice in many centers. However, there is currently no consensus on the methods and parameters to be used for robust optimization or robustness evaluation. We propose to overcome this deficiency by following the modified Delphi consensus method. This method first requires a systematic review of the literature. We performed this review using the PubMed and Web Of Science databases, via two different experts. Potential conflicts were resolved by a third expert. We then explored the different methods before focusing on clinical studies that evaluate robustness on a significant number of patients. Many robustness assessment methods are proposed in the literature. Some are more successful than others and their implementation varies between centers. Moreover, they are not all statistically or mathematically equivalent. The most sophisticated and rigorous methods have seen more limited application due to the difficulty of their implementation and their lack of widespread availability.

Feasibility study of multiple-energy Bragg peak proton FLASH on a superconducting gantry with large momentum acceptance

BACKGROUND

While the Bragg peak proton beam (BP) is capable of superior target conformity and organs-at-risk sparing than the transmission proton beam (TB), its efficacy in FLASH-RT is hindered by both a slow energy switching process and the beam current. A universal range shifter (URS) can pull back the high-energy proton beam while preserving the beam current. Meanwhile, a superconducting gantry with large momentum acceptance (LMA-SC gantry) enables fast energy switching.

PURPOSE

This study explores the feasibility of multiple-energy BP FLASH-RT on the LMA-SC gantry.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

A simultaneous dose and spot map optimization algorithm was developed for BP FLASH-RT treatment planning to improve the dose delivery efficiency. The URS was designed to be 0-27 cm thick, with 1 cm per step. BP plans using the URS were optimized using single-field optimization (SFO) and multiple-field optimization (MFO) for ten prostate cancer patients and ten lung cancer patients. The plan delivery parameters, dose, and dose rate metrics of BP plans were compared to those of TB plans using the parameters of the LMA-SC gantry.

RESULTS

Compared to TB plans, BP plans significantly reduced MUs by 42.7% (P < 0.001) with SFO and 33.3% (P < 0.001) with MFO for prostate cases. For lung cases, the reduction in MUs was 56.8% (P < 0.001) with SFO and 36.4% (P < 0.001) with MFO. BP plans also outperformed TB plans by reducing mean normal tissue doses. BP-SFO plans achieved a reduction of 56.7% (P < 0.001) for prostate cases and 57.7% (P < 0.001) for lung cases, while BP-MFO plans achieved a reduction of 54.2% (P < 0.001) for the prostate case and 40.0% (P < 0.001) for lung cases. For both TB and BP plans, normal tissues in prostate and lung cases received 100.0% FLASH dose rate coverage (>40 Gy/s).

CONCLUSIONS

By utilizing the URS and the LMA-SC gantry, it is possible to perform multiple-energy BP FLASH-RT, resulting in better normal tissue sparing, as compared to TB plans.

Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Purpose

To discuss the role of proton beam therapy (PBT) in the treatment of patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).

Materials and Methods

A review of the pertinent literature.

Results

Proton beam therapy likely results in reduced acute and late toxicity as compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The extent of the reduced toxicity, which may be modest, depends on the endpoint and technical factors such as pencil beam versus passive scattered PBT and adaptive replanning. The disease control rates after PBT are likely similar to those after IMRT.

Conclusion

Proton beam therapy is an attractive option to treat patients with OPSCC. Whether it becomes widely available depends on access.

A component method to delineate surgical spine implants for proton Monte Carlo dose calculation

PURPOSE

Metallic implants have been correlated to local control failure for spinal sarcoma and chordoma patients due to the uncertainty of implant delineation from computed tomography (CT). Such uncertainty can compromise the proton Monte Carlo dose calculation (MCDC) accuracy. A component method is proposed to determine the dimension and volume of the implants from CT images.

METHODS

The proposed component method leverages the knowledge of surgical implants from medical supply vendors to predefine accurate contours for each implant component, including tulips, screw bodies, lockers, and rods. A retrospective patient study was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the method. The reference implant materials and samples were collected from patient medical records and vendors, Medtronic and NuVasive. Additional CT images with extensive features, such as extended Hounsfield units and various reconstruction diameters, were used to quantify the uncertainty of implant contours.

RESULTS

For in vivo patient implant estimation, the reference and the component method differences were 0.35, 0.17, and 0.04 cm3 for tulips, screw bodies, and rods, respectively. The discrepancies by a conventional threshold method were 5.46, 0.76, and 0.05 cm3 , respectively. The mischaracterization of implant materials and dimensions can underdose the clinical target volume coverage by 20 cm3 for a patient with eight lumbar implants. The tulip dominates the dosimetry uncertainty as it can be made from titanium or cobalt-chromium alloys by different vendors.

CONCLUSIONS

A component method was developed and demonstrated using phantom and patient studies with implants. The proposed method provides more accurate implant characterization for proton MCDC and can potentially enhance the treatment quality for proton therapy. The current proof-of-concept study is limited to the implant characterization for lumbar spine. Future investigations could be extended to cervical spine and dental implants for head-and-neck patients where tight margins are required to spare organs at risk.

Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer

Background

To assess the impact of systematic setup and range uncertainties for robustly optimized (RO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Methods

Twenty-six localized prostate patients previously treated with VMAT (CTV to PTV expansion of 3-5 mm) were re-planned with RO-IMPT with 3 mm and 5 mm geometrical uncertainties coupled with 3% range uncertainties. Robust evaluations (RE) accounting for the geometrical uncertainties of 3 and 5 mm were evaluated for the IMPT and VMAT plans. Clinical target volume (CTV), anorectum, and bladder dose metrics were analyzed between the nominal plans and their uncertainty perturbations.

Results

With geometric uncertainties of 5 mm and accounting for potential inter-fractional perturbations, RO-IMPT provided statistically significant (p < 0.05) sparing at intermediate doses (V_4000cGy) to the anorectum and bladder and high dose sparring (V_8000cGy) to the bladder compared to VMAT. Decreasing the RO and RE parameters to 3 mm improved IMPT sparing over VMAT at all OAR dose levels investigated while maintaining equivalent coverage to the CTV.

Conclusions

For localized prostate treatments, if geometric uncertainties can be maintained at or below 3 mm, RO-IMPT provides clear dosimetric advantages in anorectum and bladder sparing compared to VMAT. This advantage remains even under uncertainty scenarios. As geometric uncertainties increase to 5 mm, RO-IMPT still provides dosimetric advantages, but to a smaller magnitude.

Spatiotemporal optimisation of prostate intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments

Objective. In intensity modulated particle therapy (IMPT), the adoption of spatially and temporally heterogeneous dose distributions allows to decouple the fractionation scheme from the patient anatomy, so that an hypofractionated schedule can be selectively created inside the tumour, while simultaneously exploiting the fractionation effect in the healthy tissues. In this paper, the authors show the reproducibility of the method on a set of prostate patients, quantifying the dependencies of the achievable benefit with respect to conventional and hypofractionated schemes and the sensitivity of the method to setup errors and range uncertainty. Approach. On a cohort of 9 patients, non-uniform IMPT plans were optimised and compared to conventional and hypofractionated schedules. For each patient, the comparison of the three strategies has been based on the output of the cost function used to optimise the treatments. The analysis has been repeated considering different α/β ratios for the tumour, namely 1.5, 3 and 4.5 Gy. For a single patient, setup errors and beam range uncertainty have been analysed: the plans, for each optimisation strategy, have been iteratively forward planned 500 times with randomly varying the patient position in each fraction, and 200 times for systematic range shift. Main results. An average 10% benefit has been shown for the lowest α/β ratio considered for the tumour, where the non-uniform schedule generally converges to hypofractionation; the benefit decreases to 5%–7% for higher α/β ratios, for which the non-uniform schedule always showed better outcomes with respect to the other fractionation schedules. An increased sensitivity to uncertainty, especially for setup errors, has been shown, which can be associated to the spatial non-uniformity of the dose distributions peculiar of the spatiotemporal plans. Significance. This work represents the first investigation of spatiotemporal fractionation for prostate cancer and the beginning of further investigations before clinical implementation can be considered.

Validation of automated complex head and neck treatment planning with pencil beam scanning proton therapy

Background

Pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages for several treatment sites, including head and neck (H&N). However, to achieve the optimal target coverage and robustness, these plans can be complex and time consuming to develop and optimize. Automating the treatment planning process can ensure a high‐quality and standardized plan, reduce burden to the planner, and decrease time‐to‐treatment. We utilized in‐house scripting to automate a four‐field multi‐field optimization (MFO) H&N planning technique.

Methods and materials

Ten bilateral H&N patients were planned in RayStation v6 with a four‐field modified‐X beam configuration using MFO planning. Automation included creation of avoidance structures to control spot placement and development of standardized beams, PBS spot settings, robust optimization objectives, and patient‐specific predicted planning constraints. Each patient was planned both with and without automation to evaluate differences in planning time, perceived effort and plan quality, plan robustness, and OAR sparing.

Results

On average, scripted plans required 3.2 h, compared to 4.3 h without the script. There was no difference in target coverage or plan robustness with or without automation. Automation significantly reduced mean dose to the oral cavity, parotids, esophagus, trachea, and larynx. Perceived effort was scaled from 1 (minimum effort) to 100 (maximum effort), and automation reduced perceived effort by 42% (p < 0.05). Two non‐scripted plans required re‐planning due to errors.

Conclusions

Automation of this multi‐beam, the MFO proton planning process reduced planning time and improved OAR sparing compared to the same planning process without scripting. Scripting generation of complex structures and planning objectives reduced burden on the planner. With most current treatment planning software, this automation is simple to implement and can standardize quality of care across all treatment planners.

Beam-Specific Spot Guidance and Optimization for PBS Proton Treatment of Bilateral Head and Neck Cancers

PURPOSE

A multi-field optimization (MFO) technique that uses beam-specific spot placement volumes (SPVs) and spot avoidance volumes (SAVs) is introduced for bilateral head and neck (H&N) cancers. These beam-specific volumes are used to guide the optimizer to consistently achieve optimal organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with target coverage and plan robustness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Implementation of this technique using a 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam arrangement is discussed. The generation of beam-specific SPVs and SAVs derived from target and OARs are shown. The SPVs for select fields are further partitioned into optimization volumes for uniform dose distributions that resemble those of single-field optimization (SFO). A conventional MFO plan that does not use beam-specific spot placement guidance (MFOcon) and an MFO plan that uses only beam-specific SPV (MFOspv) are compared with current technique (MFOspv/sav), using both simulated scenarios and forward-calculated plans on weekly verification computed tomography (VFCT) scans.

RESULTS

Dose distribution characteristics of the 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam technique are demonstrated with discussion on OAR sparing. When comparing the MFOcon, MFOspv, and MFOspv/sav, the MFOspv/sav is shown to have superior OAR sparing in 9 of the 14 OARs examined. It also shows clinical plan robustness when evaluated by using both simulated uncertainty scenarios and forward-calculated weekly VFCTs throughout the 7-week treatment course.

CONCLUSION

The MFOspv/sav technique is a systematic approach using SPVs and SAVs to guide the optimizer to consistently reach desired OAR dose values and plan robustness.

PTCOG Head and Neck Subcommittee Consensus Guidelines on Particle Therapy for the Management of Head and Neck Tumors

Purpose

Radiation therapy is a standard modality in the treatment for cancers of the head and neck, but is associated with significant short- and long-term side effects. Proton therapy, with its unique physical characteristics, can deliver less dose to normal tissues, resulting in fewer side effects. Proton therapy is currently being used for the treatment of head and neck cancer, with increasing clinical evidence supporting its use. However, barriers to wider adoption include access, cost, and the need for higher-level evidence.

Methods

The clinical evidence for the use of proton therapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer are reviewed here, including indications, advantages, and challenges.

Results

The Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Head and Neck Subcommittee task group provides consensus guidelines for the use of proton therapy for head and neck cancer.

Conclusion

This report can be used as a guide for clinical use, to understand clinical trials, and to inform future research efforts.

Past, present and future of proton therapy for head and neck cancer

Proton therapy has recently gained substantial momentum worldwide due to improved accessibility to the technology and sustained interests in its advantage of better tissue sparing compared to traditional photon radiation. Proton therapy in head and neck cancer has a unique advantage given the complex anatomy and proximity of targets to vital organs. As head and neck cancer patients are living longer due to epidemiological shifts and advances in treatment options, long-term toxicity from radiation treatment has become a major concern that may be better mitigated by proton therapy. With increased utilization of proton therapy, new proton centers breaking ground, and as excitement about the technology continue to increase, we aim to comprehensively review the evidence of proton therapy in major subsites within the head and neck, hoping to facilitate a greater understanding of the full risks and benefits of proton therapy for head and neck cancer.

Evaluation of replanning in intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer: Factors influencing plan robustness

The head and neck (H&N) region is frequently replanned during intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), but replanning disrupts clinical workflow and presents additional burden on patients. The purpose of this study was to establish a standard treatment planning approach to minimize H&N replanning by identifying a correlation between dosimetric variables and replan frequency. In a retrospective study of 27 bilateral oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with IMPT at a single institution, cases were evaluated using Fisher's exact tests and logistic regression for a significant relationship between replan frequency and the following variables: beam number, clinical target volume (CTV) coverage, presence of dental fillings, and robustness. The reason and timing for replan initiation, and patient immobilization was also recorded to identify trends. Results suggested that beam number, CTV coverage, presence of dental fillings, and the initial robustness curve on the high-dose CTV did not individually contribute to replanning frequency. Setup variation in the soft tissue of the neck was the most prominent reason for replanning. A lack of correlation between the number of replans and the studied dosimetric variables highlights the necessity of verification CT and adaptive replanning in IMPT of H&N cancer. Departments may therefore benefit from a methodical replan workflow. One development showing potential to enhance clinical replan processes is machine learning-based automatic adaptive replanning.

Robust treatment planning in whole pelvis pencil beam scanning proton therapy for prostate cancer

Whole-pelvis pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy is utilized in both the intact and post-operative settings in patients with prostate cancer. As whole pelvis prostate radiotherapy has traditionally been delivered with standard photon beams, limited evidence and technical descriptions have been reported regarding the use of proton therapy. Here we present two robust three-field treatment planning approaches utilized to maximize target coverage in the presence of anatomic and delivery uncertainties. Both techniques, conventional optimization (CO) and robust optimization (RO), create treatment plans with acceptable target coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OAR). While the RO method is less time intensive and may theoretically allow for superior OAR sparing and improved robustness, the CO method can be implemented by institutions who do not have RO capabilities.

Quantification of plan robustness against different uncertainty sources for classical and anatomical robust optimized treatment plans in head and neck cancer proton therapy

OBJECTIVE

Classical robust optimization (cRO) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) considers isocenter position and particle range uncertainties; anatomical robust optimization (aRO) aims to consider additional non-rigid positioning variations. This work compares the influence of different uncertainty sources on the robustness of cRO and aRO IMPT plans for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

METHODS

Two IMPT plans were optimized for 20 HNSCC patients who received weekly control CTs (cCT): cRO, using solely the planning CT, and aRO, including 2 additional cCTs. The robustness of the plans in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing was analyzed considering stepwise the influence of (1) non-rigid anatomical variations given by the weekly cCT, (2) with fraction-wise added rigid random setup errors and (3) additional systematic proton range uncertainties.

RESULTS

cRO plans presented significantly higher nominal CTV coverage but are outperformed by aRO plans when considering non-rigid anatomical variations only, as cRO and aRO plans presented a median target coverage (D98%) decrease for the low-risk/high-risk CTV of 1.8/1.1 percentage points (pp) and -0.2 pp/-0.3 pp, respectively. Setup and range uncertainties had larger influence on cRO CTV coverage, but led to similar OAR dose changes in both plans. Considering all error sources, 10/2 cRO/aRO patients missed the CTV coverage and a limited number exceeded some OAR constraints in both plans.

CONCLUSION

Non-rigid anatomical variations are mainly responsible for critical target coverage loss of cRO plans, whereas the aRO approach was robust against such variations. Both plans provide similar robustness of OAR parameters.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The influence of different uncertainty sources was quantified for robust IMPT HNSCC plans.

Inter-fraction robustness of intensity-modulated proton therapy in the post-operative treatment of oropharyngeal and oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate dosimetric consequences of inter-fraction setup variation and anatomical changes in patients receiving multifield optimised (MFO) intensity modulated proton therapy for post-operative oropharyngeal (OPC) and oral cavity (OCC) cancers.

METHODS

Six patients receiving MFO for post-operative OPC and OCC were evaluated. Plans were robustly optimised to clinical target volumes (CTVs) using 3 mm setup and 3.5% range uncertainty. Weekly online cone beam CT (CBCT) were performed. Planning CT was deformed to the CBCT to create virtual CTs (vCTs) on which the planned dose was recalculated. vCT plan robustness was evaluated using a setup uncertainty of 1.5 mm and range uncertainty of 3.5%. Target coverage, D95%, and hotspots, D0.03cc, were evaluated for each uncertainty along with the vCT-calculated nominal plan. Mean dose to organs at risk (OARs) for the vCT-calculated nominal plan and relative % change in weight from baseline were evaluated.

RESULTS

Robustly optimised plans in post-operative OPC and OCC patients are robust against inter-fraction setup variations and range uncertainty. D0.03cc in the vCT-calculated nominal plans were clinically acceptable across all plans. Across all patients D95% in the vCT-calculated nominal treatment plan was at least 100% of the prescribed dose. No patients lost ≥10% weight from baseline. Mean dose to the OARs and max dose to the spinal cord remained within tolerance.

CONCLUSION

MFO plans in post-operative OPC and OCC patients are robust to inter-fraction uncertainties in setup and range when evaluated over multiple CT scans without compromising OAR mean dose.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first paper to evaluate inter-fraction MFO plan robustness in post-operative head and neck treatment.

Concepts of PTV and Robustness in Passively Scattered and Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy

Concepts of planning target volume and plan robustness in proton therapy are described. Implementation of these concepts into treatment planning is described. Proton plan sensitivity and interfractional and intrafractional anatomical variation are also discussed.

Clinical Feasibility of Single-Source Dual-spiral 4D Dual-Energy CT for Proton Treatment Planning Within the Thoracic Region

PURPOSE

Single-source dual-spiral dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) provides additional patient information but is prone to motion between the 2 consecutively acquired computed tomography (CT) scans. Here, the clinical applicability of dual-spiral time-resolved DECT (4D-DECT) for proton treatment planning within the thoracic region was evaluated.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Dual-spiral 4D-DECT scans of 3 patients with lung cancer were acquired. For time-averaged datasets and 4 breathing phases, the geometric conformity of 80 kVp and 140 kVp 4D-DECT scans before image post-processing was assessed by normalized cross correlation (NCC). Additionally, the conformity of the corresponding DECT-derived 58 keV and 79 keV pseudo-monoenergetic CT datasets after image post-processing, including deformable image registration (DIR), was determined. To analyze the reliability of proton dose calculation, clinical (Plan_Clin) and artificial worst-case (Plan_WorstCase, targeting the diaphragm) treatment plans were calculated on 140 kVp and 79 keV datasets and compared with gamma analyses (0.1% dose-difference and 1 mm distance-to-agreement criterion). The applicability of a patient-specific DECT-based prediction of stopping-power ratio (SPR) was investigated and proton range shifts compared with the clinical heuristic CT-number-to-SPR conversion were assessed. Finally, the delineation variability of an experienced radiation oncologist was quantified.

RESULTS

Dual-spiral 4D-DECT scans without DIR showed a high geometric conformity, with an average NCC ± standard deviation of 98.7% ± 1.0% when including all patient voxels or 88.2% ± 7.8% when considering only lung. DIR improved the conformity, leading to an average NCC of 99.9% ± 0.1% and 99.6% ± 0.5%, respectively. Plan_Clin dose distributions on 140 kVp and 79 keV datasets were similar, with an average gamma passing rate of 99.9% (99.2%-100%). The worst-case evaluation still revealed high passing rates (99.3% on average, 92.4% as minimum). Clinically relevant mean range shifts of 2.2% ± 1.2% were determined between patient-specific DECT-based SPR prediction and clinical heuristic CT-number-to-SPR conversion. The intra-observer delineation variability was slightly reduced using additional DECT-derived datasets.

CONCLUSIONS

The 79 keV pseudo-monoenergetic CT datasets can be consistently obtained from dual-spiral 4D-DECT and are applicable for dose calculation. Patient-specific DECT-based SPR prediction performed well and potentially reduces range uncertainty in proton therapy of patients with lung cancer.

Dual-energy CT based proton range prediction in head and pelvic tumor patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To reduce range uncertainty in particle therapy, an accurate computation of stopping-power ratios (SPRs) based on computed tomography (CT) is crucial. Here, we assess range differences between the state-of-the-art CT-number-to-SPR conversion using a generic Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) and a direct patient-specific SPR prediction (RhoSigma) based on dual-energy CT (DECT) in 100 proton treatment fields.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For 25 head-tumor and 25 prostate-cancer patients, the clinically applied treatment plan, optimized using a HLUT, was recalculated with RhoSigma as CT-number-to-SPR conversion. Depth-dose curves in beam direction were extracted for both dose distributions in a regular grid and range deviations were determined and correlated to SPR differences within the irradiated volume.

RESULTS

Absolute (relative) mean water-equivalent range shifts of 1.1mm (1.2%) and 4.1mm (1.7%) were observed in the head-tumor and prostate-cancer cohort, respectively. Due to the case dependency of a generic HLUT, range deviations within treatment fields strongly depend on the tissues traversed leading to a larger variation within one patient than between patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of patient-specific range deviations between HLUT and the more accurate DECT-based SPR prediction is clinically relevant. A clinical application of the latter seems feasible as demonstrated in this study using medically approved systems from CT acquisition to treatment planning.

Potential proton and photon dose degradation in advanced head and neck cancer patients by intratherapy changes

Purpose

Evaluation of dose degradation by anatomic changes for head‐and‐neck cancer (HNC) intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) relative to intensity‐modulated photon therapy (IMRT) and identification of potential indicators for IMPT treatment plan adaptation.

Methods

For 31 advanced HNC datasets, IMPT and IMRT plans were recalculated on a computed tomography scan (CT) taken after about 4 weeks of therapy. Dose parameter changes were determined for the organs at risk (OARs) spinal cord, brain stem, parotid glands, brachial plexus, and mandible, for the clinical target volume (CTV) and the healthy tissue outside planning target volume (PTV). Correlation of dose degradation with target volume changes and quality of rigid CT matching was investigated.

Results

Recalculated IMPT dose distributions showed stronger degradation than the IMRT doses. OAR analysis revealed significant changes in parotid median dose (IMPT) and near maximum dose (D_1ml) of spinal cord (IMPT, IMRT) and mandible (IMPT). OAR dose parameters remained lower in IMPT cases. CTV coverage (V_95%) and overdose (V_107%) deteriorated for IMPT plans to (93.4 ± 5.4)% and (10.6 ± 12.5)%, while those for IMRT plans remained acceptable. Recalculated plans showed similarly decreased PTV conformity, but considerable hotspots, also outside the PTV, emerged in IMPT cases. Lower CT matching quality was significantly correlated with loss of PTV conformity (IMPT, IMRT), CTV homogeneity and coverage (IMPT). Target shrinkage correlated with increased dose in brachial plexus (IMRT, IMPT), hotspot generation outside the PTV (IMPT) and lower PTV conformity (IMRT).

Conclusions

The study underlines the necessity of precise positioning and monitoring of anatomy changes, especially in IMPT which might require adaptation more often. Since OAR doses remained typically below constraints, IMPT plan adaptation will be indicated by target dose degradations.