A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT)

Comparing different boost concepts and beam configurations for proton therapy of pancreatic cancer

Background and Purpose

Interfractional geometrical and anatomical variations impact the accuracy of proton therapy for pancreatic cancer. This study investigated field-in-field (FIF) and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) concepts for scanned proton therapy treatment with different beam configurations.

Materials and Methods

Robustly optimized treatment plans for fifteen patients were generated using FIF and SIB techniques with two, three, and four beams. The prescribed dose in 20 fractions was 60 Gy(RBE) for the internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) and 46 Gy(RBE) for the internal clinical target volume. Verification computed tomography (vCT) scans was performed on treatment days 1, 7, and 16. Initial treatment plans were recalculated on the rigidly registered vCTs. V100% and D95% for targets and D2cm3 for the stomach and duodenum were evaluated. Robustness evaluations (range uncertainty of 3.5 %) were performed to evaluate the stomach and duodenum dose-volume parameters.

Results

For all techniques, IGTV V100% and D95% decreased significantly when recalculating the dose on vCTs (p < 0.001). The median IGTV V100% and D95% over all vCTs ranged from 74.2 % to 90.2 % and 58.8 Gy(RBE) to 59.4 Gy(RBE), respectively. The FIF with two and three beams, and SIB with two beams maintained the highest IGTV V100% and D95%. In robustness evaluations, the ΔD2cm3 of stomach was highest in two beams plans, while the ΔD2cm3 of duodenum was highest in four beams plans, for both concepts.

Conclusion

Target coverage decreased when recalculating on CTs at different time for both concepts. The FIF with three beams maintained the highest IGTV coverage while sparing normal organs the most.

First direct machine-specific parameters incorporated in Spot-scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) optimization algorithm

BACKGROUND

Spot-scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) has been of significant interest in recent years because of its superior plan quality. Currently, the primary focus of research and development is on deliverability and treatment efficiency.

PURPOSE

To address the challenges in generating a deliverable and efficient SPArc plan for a proton therapy system with a massive gantry, we developed a novel SPArc optimization algorithm (SPArcDMPO ) by directly incorporating the machine-specific parameters such as gantry mechanical constraints and proton delivery sequence.

METHODS

SPArc delivery sequence model (DSMarc ) was built based on the machine-specific parameters of the prototype arc delivery system, IBA ProteusONE®, including mechanical constraint (maximum gantry speed, acceleration, and deceleration) and proton delivery sequence (energy and spot delivery sequence, and irradiation time). SPArcDMPO resamples and adjusts each control point's delivery speed based on the DSMarc calculation through the iterative approach. In SPArcDMPO, users could set a reasonable arc delivery time during the plan optimization, which aims to minimize the gantry momentum changes and improve the delivery efficiency. Ten cases were selected to test SPArcDMPO . Two kinds of SPArc plans were generated using the same planning objective functions: (1) original SPArc plan (SPArcoriginal ); (2) SPArcDMPO plan with a user-pre-defined delivery time. Additionally, arc delivery sequence was simulated based on the DSMarc and was compared. Treatment delivery time was compared between SPArcoriginal and SPArcDMPO . Dynamic arc delivery time, the static irradiation time, and its corresponding time differential (time differential = dynamic arc delivery time-static irradiation time) were analyzed, respectively. The total gantry velocity change was accumulated throughout the treatment delivery.

RESULTS

With a similar plan quality, objective value, number of energy layers, and spots, both SPArcoriginal and SPArcDMPO plans could be delivered continuously within the ± 1 degree tolerance window. However, compared to the SPArcoriginal , the strategy of SPArcDMPO is able to reduce the time differential from 30.55 ± 11.42%(90 ± 32 s) to 14.67 ± 6.97%(42 ± 20 s), p < 0.01. Furthermore, the corresponding total variations of gantry velocity during dynamic arc delivery are mitigated (SPArcoriginal vs. SPArcDMPO ) from 14.73 ± 9.14 degree/s to 4.28 ± 2.42 degree/s, p < 0.01. Consequently, the SPArcDMPO plans could minimize the gantry momentum change based on the clinical user's input compared to the SPArcoriginal plans, which could help relieve the mechanical challenge of accelerating or decelerating the massive proton gantry.

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, clinical users not only could generate a SPArc plan meeting the mechanical constraint of their proton system but also directly control the arc treatment speed and momentum changes of the gantry during the plan optimization process. This work paved the way for the routine clinical implementation of proton arc therapy in the treatment planning system.

Study of a plastic scintillating plate-based quality assurance system for pencil beam scanning proton beams

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a plastic scintillating plate-based beam monitoring system to perform quality assurance (QA) measurements in pencil beam scanning proton beam.

METHODS

Single spots and scanned fields were measured with the high-resolution dosimetry system, consisting of a plastic scintillation plate coupled to a camera in a dark box at the isocenter. The measurements were taken at 110-190 MeV beam energies with 30° gantry angle intervals at each energy. Spot positions were determined using the plastic scintillating plate-based dosimetry system at the isocenter for 70-230 MeV beam energies with 30° gantry angle intervals. The effect of gantry angle on dose distribution was also assessed by determining the scanning pattern for daily QA and 25 fields treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy.

RESULTS

Spot size, field flatness, and field symmetry of plastic scintillating plate-based dosimetry system were consistent with EBT3 at all investigated energies and angles. In all investigated energies and angles, the spot size measured was ±10% of the average size of each energy, the spot position measured was within ±2 mm, field flatness was within ±2%, and field symmetry was within ±1%. The mean gamma passing rates with the 3%/3 mm gamma criterion of the scanning pattern and 25 fields were 99.2% and 99.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This system can be effective for QA determinations of spot size, spot position, field flatness, and field symmetry over 360° of gantry rotation in a time- and cost-effective manner, with spatial resolution comparable to that of EBT3 film.

Comparative dosimetric study of spot-scanning proton therapy versus volumetric-modulated radiation therapy for extrahepatic bile duct cancer

This study aimed to compare the dose distributions and clarify the dosimetric characteristics of spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT) and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for extrahepatic bile duct cancer (EBDC). This retrospective study included 10 patients with EBDC treated with real-time image-gated SSPT. Using the simultaneous integrated boost technique, the 2 prescription dose levels for planning target volumes were 72.6 and 44 Gy, delivered in 22 fractions. Plan quality comparisons were conducted by analyzing various parameters, including homogeneity, conformity, dose to organs at risk, and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for radiation-induced liver damage (RILD). The target dose distributions using SSPT were almost equivalent to those achieved using photon VMAT. There was a significant reduction in all liver dose parameters, the NTCP value for RILD, and kidney dose (mean, V12 Gy, and V18 Gy) in SSPT than in photon VMAT. No significant differences were observed in the intestinal doses in the high-dose area. Thus, compared with photon VMAT, SSPT for EBDC significantly reduced radiation doses to the liver and kidneys and has shown potential clinical benefits of reduced radiation-induced toxicity.

Dosimetric Characteristics of Radiophotoluminescent Glass Dosimeters for Proton Beams

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters (RGDs) for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. The RGD's end-to-end testing of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans was also evaluated.

Materials and Methods

The dosimetric characteristics of the GD-302M type glass dosimeter were studied in terms of uniformity, short-term and long-term reproducibility, stability of the magazine position readout, dose linearity in the range from 0.2 to 20 Gy, energy response in 70-220 MeV, and fading effect. The reference conditions of the spot scanning beam from the Varian ProBeam Compact system were operation at 160 MeV, a 2 cm water-equivalent depth in a solid water phantom, a 10 cm × 10 cm field size at the isocenter, and 2 Gy dose delivery. End-to-end testing of IMPT plans for the head, abdomen, and pelvis was verified using the Alderson Rando phantom. The overall uncertainty analysis was confirmed in this study.

Results

The relative response of RGDs for the uniformity test was within 0.95-1.05. The percentages of the coefficients of variation for short-term and long-term reproducibility were 1.16% and 1.50%, respectively. The dose ACE glass dosimetry reader FGD-1000 showed a stable magazine position readout. The dose was found to be linear with R2 = 0.9988. The energy response relative to 160 MeV was approximately within 4.0%. The fading effect was within 2.4%. For the end-to-end test, the difference between the treatment plan and RGD measurement was within 1.0%. The overall uncertainty of the RGD measurement for the proton beam was 4.6%, which covered all energy ranges in this study.

Conclusion

The experimental study indicates that the RGDs have the potential to be used in the dosimetry of therapeutic proton beams, including end-to-end dosimetry.

Comparison of dosimetries of carbon-ion pencil beam scanning, proton pencil beam scanning and volumetric modulated arc therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer

We compared the dose distributions of carbon-ion pencil beam scanning (C-PBS), proton pencil beam scanning (P-PBS) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for locally recurrent rectal cancer. The C-PBS treatment planning computed tomography (CT) data sets of 10 locally recurrent rectal cancer cases were randomly selected. Three treatment plans were created using identical prescribed doses. The beam angles for C-PBS and P-PBS were identical. Dosimetry, including the dose received by 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) (D95%), dose to the 2 cc receiving the maximum dose (D2cc), organ at risk (OAR) volume receiving > 15Gy (V15) and > 30Gy (V30), was evaluated. Statistical significance was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Mean PTV-D95% values were > 95% of the volume for P-PBS and C-PBS, whereas that for VMAT was 94.3%. However, PTV-D95% values in P-PBS and VMAT were < 95% in five and two cases, respectively, due to the OAR dose reduction. V30 and V15 to the rectum/intestine for C-PBS (V30 = 4.2 ± 3.2 cc, V15 = 13.8 ± 10.6 cc) and P-PBS (V30 = 7.3 ± 5.6 cc, V15 = 21.3 ± 13.5 cc) were significantly lower than those for VMAT (V30 = 17.1 ± 10.6 cc, V15 = 55.2 ± 28.6 cc). Bladder-V30 values with P-PBS/C-PBS (3.9 ± 4.8 Gy(RBE)/3.0 ± 4.0 Gy(RBE)) were significantly lower than those with VMAT (7.9 ± 8.1 Gy). C-PBS provided superior dose conformation and lower OAR doses compared with P-PBS and VMAT. C-PBS may be the best choice for cases in which VMAT and P-PBS cannot satisfy dose constraints. C-PBS could be another choice for cases in which VMAT and P-PBS cannot satisfy dose constraints, thereby avoiding surgical resection.

Practice-oriented solutions integrating intraoperative electron irradiation and personalized proton therapy for recurrent or unresectable cancers: Proof of concept and potential for dual FLASH effect

Background

Oligo-recurrent disease has a consolidated evidence of long-term surviving patients due to the use of intense local cancer therapy. The latter combines real-time surgical exploration/resection with high-energy electron beam single dose of irradiation. This results in a very precise radiation dose deposit, which is an essential element of contemporary multidisciplinary individualized oncology.

Methods

Patient candidates to proton therapy were evaluated in Multidisciplinary Tumor Board to consider improved treatment options based on the institutional resources and expertise. Proton therapy was delivered by a synchrotron-based pencil beam scanning technology with energy levels from 70.2 to 228.7 MeV, whereas intraoperative electrons were generated in a miniaturized linear accelerator with dose rates ranging from 22 to 36 Gy/min (at Dmax) and energies from 6 to 12 MeV.

Results

In a period of 24 months, 327 patients were treated with proton therapy: 218 were adults, 97 had recurrent cancer, and 54 required re-irradiation. The specific radiation modalities selected in five cases included an integral strategy to optimize the local disease management by the combination of surgery, intraoperative electron boost, and external pencil beam proton therapy as components of the radiotherapy management. Recurrent cancer was present in four cases (cervix, sarcoma, melanoma, and rectum), and one patient had a primary unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In re-irradiated patients (cervix and rectum), a tentative radical total dose was achieved by integrating beams of electrons (ranging from 10- to 20-Gy single dose) and protons (30 to 54-Gy Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE), in 10-25 fractions).

Conclusions

Individual case solution strategies combining intraoperative electron radiation therapy and proton therapy for patients with oligo-recurrent or unresectable localized cancer are feasible. The potential of this combination can be clinically explored with electron and proton FLASH beams.

Proton Therapy in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Simple Summary

Radiation treatment plays a pivotal a role in the management of pancreatic cancer, mainly in the neoadjuvant setting for borderline resectable tumors and in the definitive setting for unresectable localized disease. Most of the studies on pancreatic cancer use photon-based radiation therapy modalities. However, there is a growing interest in the application of protons therapy for gastrointestinal cancers. This review summarizes the literature on the use of proton therapy in the management of pancreatic cancer.

Abstract

Radiation therapy plays a central role in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. While generally shown to be feasible, proton irradiation, particularly when an ablative dose is planned, remains a challenge, especially due to tumor motion and the proximity to organs at risk, like the stomach, duodenum, and bowel. Clinically, standard doses of proton radiation treatment have not been shown to be statistically different from photon radiation treatment in terms of oncologic outcomes and toxicity rates as per non-randomized comparative studies. Fractionation schedules and concurrent chemotherapy combinations are yet to be optimized for proton therapy and are the subject of ongoing trials.

Dose-escalated proton therapy with elective nodal irradiation and concomitant chemotherapy for unresectable, borderline resectable, or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer: a phase II trial

BACKGROUND

To report outcomes of a phase II single-institution trial of dose-escalated proton radiotherapy with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and concomitant chemotherapy for patients with unresectable, borderline resectable, or medically inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Patients received 40.5 GyRBE in 18 fractions to the gross disease and elective nodal volumes followed by 22.5 GyRBE as a 10-fraction boost to the gross disease for a cumulative dose of 63 GyRBE over 28 fractions. Oral capecitabine (1,000 mg taken orally twice daily) was given on radiation treatment days. The primary objective of this study was to improve the proportion surviving to at least 1 year from the historical rate of 50% to 75%. Secondary objectives included assessing gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and weight loss during treatment, and evaluating the safety of subsequent surgical resection. This single-institution study was closed to accrual early after the opening of the multicenter PAN009-18 trial by the Proton Collaborative Group (PCG), which follows a similar protocol.

RESULTS

At enrollment, 10 (67%) patients had unresectable disease, 3 (20%) had borderline-resectable disease, and 2 (13%) refused surgery. All 15 patients successfully completed radiation therapy as prescribed. With regard to toxicity, a single patient experienced grade 3 nausea requiring cessation of capecitabine, which ultimately resolved by treatment completion. The median percentage weight loss during treatment was -3.0% (range, -9.6% to +12.0%). Two (13%) initially borderline patients ultimately underwent R0 resection: their total operating room times were 267 and 410 minutes, and blood loss was 700 and 400 mL, respectively. Neither patient experienced intraoperative or postoperative complications. Both were discharged on postoperative day 6. The median follow-up was 0.93 years (range, 0.21 to 2.14 years). The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate was 47%. Three enrolled patients are currently alive: 2 with no evidence of disease and 1 with stable disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary objective of 1-year OS of 75% was not reached. Proton therapy was well-tolerated. Patients undergoing surgery did not experience operative or perioperative complications, suggesting that patients with borderline resectable or even resectable disease may benefit from neoadjuvant proton therapy. The PCG will test this premise as patients accrue to the multicenter PAN009-18 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02598349.

Investigate the Dosimetric and Potential Clinical Benefits Utilizing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparison Between Photon and Proton Beam Therapy

Purpose

To investigate the potential clinical benefits of using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) among different treatment modalities and planning strategies, including photon and proton.

Method

A total of 19 patients were retrospectively selected in this study: 13 cases with the tumor located in the head of the pancreas and 6 cases with the tumor in the body of the pancreas. SBRT-SIB plans were generated using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), two-field Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT), and three-field IMPT. The IMPT used the robust optimization parameters of ± 3.5% range and 5-mm setup uncertainties. Root-mean-square deviation dose (RMSD) volume histograms were used to evaluate the target coverage robustness quantitatively. Dosimetric metrics based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH), homogeneity index (HI), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate the potential clinical benefits among different planning groups.

Results

With a similar CTV and SIB coverage, two-field IMPT provided a lower maximum dose for the stomach (median: 18.6GyE, p<0.05) and duodenum (median: 32.62GyE, p<0.05) when the target was located in the head of the pancreas compared to VMAT and three-field IMPT. The risks of gastric bleed (3.42%) and grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity (4.55%) were also decreased. However, for the target in the body of the pancreas, VMAT showed a lower maximum dose for the stomach (median 30.93GyE, p<0.05) and toxicity of gastric bleed (median: 8.67%, p<0.05) compared to two-field IMPT and three-field IMPT, while other maximum doses and NTCPs were similar. The RMSD volume histogram (RVH) analysis shows that three-field IMPT provided better robustness for targets but not for OARs. Instead, three-field IMPT increased the Dmean of organs such as the stomach, duodenum, and intestine.

Conclusion

The results indicated that the tumor locations could play a critical role in determining clinical benefits among different treatment modalities. Two-field IMPT could be a better option for LAPC patients whose tumors are located in the head of the pancreas. It provides lower severe toxicity for the stomach and duodenum. Nevertheless, VMAT is preferred for the body with better protection for the possibility of gastric bleed.

Applications of various range shifters for proton pencil beam scanning radiotherapy

Background

A range pull-back device, such as a machine-related range shifter (MRS) or a universal patient-related range shifter (UPRS), is needed in pencil beam scanning technique to treat shallow tumors.

Methods

Three UPRS made by QFix (Avondale, PA, USA) allow treating targets across the body: U-shaped bolus (UB), anterior lateral bolus (ALB), and couch top bolus. Head-and-neck (HN) patients who used the UPRS were tested. The in-air spot sizes were measured and compared in this study at air gaps: 6 cm, 16 cm, and 26 cm. Measurements were performed in a solid water phantom using a single-field optimization pencil beam scanning field with the ALB placed at 0, 10, and 20 cm air gaps. The two-dimensional dose maps at the middle of the spread-out Bragg peak were measured using ion chamber array MatriXX PT (IBA-Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) located at isocenter and compared with the treatment planning system.

Results

A UPRS can be consistently placed close to the patient and maintains a relatively small spot size resulting in improved dose distributions. However, when a UPRS is non-removable (e.g. thick couch top), the quality of volumetric imaging is degraded due to their high Z material construction, hindering the value of Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT). Limitations of using UPRS with small air gaps include reduced couch weight limit, potential collision with patient or immobilization devices, and challenges using non-coplanar fields with certain UPRS. Our experience showed the combination of a U-shaped bolus exclusively for an HN target and an MRS as the complimentary device for head-and-neck targets as well as for all other treatment sites may be ideal to preserve the dosimetric advantages of pencil beam scanning proton treatments across the body.

Conclusion

We have described how to implement UPRS and MRS for various clinical indications using the PBS technique, and comprehensively reviewed the advantage and disadvantages of UPRS and MRS. We recommend the removable UB only to be employed for the brain and HN treatments while an automated MRS is used for all proton beams that require RS but not convenient or feasible to use UB.

Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Using Spot-Scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) Therapy: A Feasibility Study

Purpose

We developed a 4D interplay effect model to quantitatively evaluate breathing-induced interplay effects and assess the feasibility of utilizing spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy for hypo-fractionated lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The model was then validated by retrospective application to clinical cases.

Materials and Methods

A digital lung 4DCT phantoms was used to mimic targets in diameter of 3cm with breathing motion amplitudes: 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm, respectively. Two planning groups based on robust optimization were generated: (1) Two-field Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) plans and (2) SPArc plans via a partial arc. 5,000 cGy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was prescribed to the internal target volume (ITV) in five fractions. To quantitatively assess the breathing induced interplay effect, the 4D dynamic dose was calculated by synchronizing the breathing pattern with the simulated proton machine delivery sequence, including IMPT, Volumetric repainting (IMPT_volumetric), iso-layered repainting (IMPT_layer) and SPArc. Ten lung patients’ 4DCT previously treated with VMAT SBRT, were used to validate the digital lung tumor model. Normal tissue complicated probability (NTCP) of chestwall toxicity was calculated.

Result

Target dose were degraded as the tumor motion amplitude increased. The 4D interplay effect phantom model indicated that motion mitigation effectiveness using SPArc was about five times of IMPT_volumetric or IMPT_layer using maximum MU/spot as 0.5 MU at 20 mm motion amplitude. The retrospective study showed that SPArc has an advantage in normal tissue sparing. The probability of chestwall’s toxicity were significantly improved from 40.2 ± 29.0% (VMAT) (p = 0.01) and 16.3 ± 12.0% (IMPT) (p = 0.01) to 10.1 ± 5.4% (SPArc). SPArc could play a significant role in the interplay effect mitigation with breathing-induced motion more than 20 mm, where the target D99 of 4D dynamic dose for patient #10 was improved from 4,514 ± 138 cGy [RBE] (IMPT) vs. 4,755 ± 129 cGy [RBE] (SPArc) (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

SPArc effectively mitigated the interplay effect for proton lung SBRT compared to IMPT with repainting and was associated with normal tissue sparing. This technology may make delivery of proton SBRT more technically feasible and less complex with fewer concerns over underdosing the target compared to other proton therapy techniques.

Dose-escalated simultaneously integrated boost photon or proton therapy in pancreatic cancer in an in-silico study: Gastrointestinal organs remain critical

•

Robustly optimized proton plans (rMFO-IMPT) with simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) were clinically applicable.

•

Gastrointestinal organs reached critical dose values in rMFO-IMPT, VMAT and Tomotherapy techniques.

•

rMFO-IMPT significantly reduced the low and intermediate dose to organs at risk.

•

No clinically significant differences on results depending on tumor location or surgical status were observed.

Purpose

To compare the dosimetric results of an in-silico study among intensity-modulated photon (IMRT) and robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton (IMPT) treatment techniques using a dose-escalated simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) approach in locally recurrent or advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Material and methods

For each of 15 locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients, a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a Tomotherapy (TOMO), and an IMPT treatment plan was optimized on free-breathing treatment planning computed tomography (CT) images. For the photon treatment plans, doses of 66 Gy and 51 Gy, both as SIB in 30 fractions, were prescribed to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and to the planning target volume (PTV), respectively. For the proton plans, a dose prescription of 66 Gy(RBE) to the GTV and of 51 Gy(RBE) to the clinical target volume (CTV) was planned. For each SIB-treatment plan, doses to the targets and OARs were evaluated and statistically compared.

Results

All treatment techniques reached the prescribed doses to the GTV and CTV or PTV. The stomach and the bowel, in particular the duodenum and the small bowel, were found to be frequently exposed to doses exceeding 50 Gy, irrespective of the treatment technique. For doses below 50 Gy, the IMPT technique was statistically significant superior to both IMRT techniques regarding decreasing dose to the OARs, e.g. volume of the bowel receiving 15 Gy (V_15Gy) was reduced for IMPT compared to VMAT (p = 0.003) and TOMO (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

With all photon and proton techniques investigated, the radiation dose to gastrointestinal OARs remained critical when treating patients with unresectable locally recurrent or advanced pancreatic cancer using a dose-escalated SIB approach.

Impact of interfractional anatomical variation and setup correction methods on interfractional dose variation in IMPT and VMAT plans for pancreatic cancer patients: A planning study

Purpose

To investigate the impact of interfractional anatomical changes and setup correction methods on dose distributions in pancreatic cancer patients under breath‐hold conditions.

Methods

Three intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans with different beam arrangements and one volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan prescribing 54 Gy in 30 fractions were created for 10 patients who underwent three additional CT scans performed at an interval of 1–2 weeks. The additional CT sets were rigidly registered to the simulation CT set using both bone‐matching (BM) and organ‐matching (OM) methods in each patient. Recalculated dose distributions and dose–volume indices on the additional CT sets using either the BM or the OM method were compared with the simulation values.

Results

Differences in the gross tumor volume D_98% value from the simulation sets ranged from −0.8 to −5.9% on average. In addition, the variations were larger with OM compared with BM for two IMPT plans. Meanwhile, differences in the D_98% value in the region isotropically enlarged by 5 mm from the gross tumor volume were significantly improved with OM on two IMPT plans and the VMAT plan. Among the organs at risk, the dose–volume indices were significantly improved with OM only in the duodenum on all plans.

Conclusion

Organ‐matching may be a better setup correction technique than BM for both photon therapy and IMPT plans. However, in some beam arrangements of IMPT, the dose distribution may be somewhat worse using OM, due to interfractional anatomical variation. Therefore, it is important to choose beam angles that are less likely to be influenced by changes in the gastrointestinal gas volume, especially in IMPT plans.

Dose-Volume and Radiobiological Model-Based Comparative Evaluation of the Gastrointestinal Toxicity Risk of Photon and Proton Irradiation Plans in Localized Pancreatic Cancer Without Distant Metastasis

Background: Radiobiological model-based studies of photon-modulated radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer have reported reduced gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, although the risk is still high. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of 3D-passive scattering proton beam therapy (3D-PSPBT) in limiting GI organ at risk (OAR) toxicity in localized pancreatic cancer based on dosimetric data and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model. Methods: The data of 24 pancreatic cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed, and these patients were planned with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 3D-PSPBT. The tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. All generated plans consisted of a 50.4-GyE (Gray equivalent) dose in 28 fractions with equivalent OAR constraints, and they were normalized to cover 50% of the planning treatment volume (PTV) with 100% of the prescription dose. Physical dose distributions were evaluated. GI-OAR toxicity risk for different endpoints was estimated by using published NTCP Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) models. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the dosimetric data, and ΔNTCP_IMRT-PSPBT and ΔNTCP_VMAT-PSPBT were also computed. Results: Similar homogeneity and conformity for the clinical target volume (CTV) and PTV were exhibited by all three planning techniques (P > 0.05). 3D-PSPBT resulted in a significant dose reduction for GI-OARs in both the low-intermediate dose range (below 30 GyE) and the highest dose region (D _max and V _{50 GyE}) in comparison with IMRT and VMAT (P < 0.05). Based on the NTCP evaluation, the NTCP reduction for GI-OARs by 3D-PSPBT was minimal in comparison with IMRT and VMAT. Conclusion: 3D-PSPBT results in minimal NTCP reduction and has less potential to substantially reduce the toxicity risk of upper GI bleeding, ulceration, obstruction, and perforation endpoints compared to IMRT and VMAT. 3D-PSPBT may have the potential to reduce acute dose-limiting toxicity in the form of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea by reducing the GI-OAR treated volume in the low-to-intermediate dose range. However, this result needs to be further evaluated in future clinical studies.

The first prototype of spot-scanning proton arc treatment delivery

PURPOSE

We report the first prototype of spot-scanning arc treatment (SPArc) delivery on a clinical proton beam therapy machine and evaluate its delivery accuracy and efficiency.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A new module called Proton Dynamic Arc Delivery (PDAD) was developed to allow simultaneously delivering spot-scanning proton beam treatments while rotating the gantry on an IBA Proteus®One proton machine. A series of measurements was performed to validate the basic beam characteristics. Subsequently, patient specific quality assurance (QA) of a brain SPArc plan was performed. Total SPArc treatment delivery time was also recorded and compared to the clinically delivered intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment time. Finally, the log file of the SPArc plan was analyzed and processed to reconstruct the actual delivered dose.

RESULTS

All the basic beam characteristics were confirmed in the PDAD mode, similar as those measured using fixed gantry deliveries in clinical mode. The brain SPArc plan with similar or superior plan quality was delivered in 4 mins compared to total 11 mins for the clinical treatment of the three-field IMPT plan. The patient QA result showed a good agreement between the measured and calculated dose distributions with the gamma index of 98.6% (3%/3 mm). The analysis of the log file confirmed the accuracy of the SPArc plan delivery, with the gamma index of 98.3% (1%/1 mm) between reconstructed and the planned doses.

CONCLUSION

The first prototype of dynamic proton arc delivery on a clinical proton therapy system was successfully performed. The measurements and simulations demonstrated the feasibility of SPArc treatment within the clinical requirements.

Comparison of different treatment planning approaches for intensity-modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant radio(chemo)therapy of non-metastasized, borderline resectable or unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer is complex and prone to cause side-effects, e.g., in gastrointestinal organs. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) enables a high conformity to the targets while simultaneously sparing the normal tissue such that dose-escalation strategies come within reach. In this in silico feasibility study, we compared four IMPT planning strategies including robust multi-field optimization (rMFO) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose-escalation in pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

For six pancreatic cancer patients referred for adjuvant or primary radiochemotherapy, four rMFO-IMPT-SIB treatment plans each, consisting of two or three (non-)coplanar beam arrangements, were optimized. Dose values for both targets, i.e., the elective clinical target volume [CTV, prescribed dose D_pres = 51Gy(RBE)] and the boost target [D_pres = 66Gy(RBE)], for the organs at risk as well as target conformity and homogeneity indexes, derived from the dose volume histograms, were statistically compared.

RESULTS

All treatment plans of each strategy fulfilled the prescribed doses to the targets (D_{pres(GTV,CTV)} = 100%, D_{95%,(GTV,CTV)} ≥ 95%, D_2%,(GTV,CTV) ≤ 107%). No significant differences for the conformity index were found (p > 0.05), however, treatment plans with a three non-coplanar beam strategy were most homogenous to both targets (p < 0.045). The median value of all dosimetric results of the large and small bowel as well as for the liver and the spinal cord met the dose constraints with all beam arrangements. Irrespective of the planning strategies, the dose constraint for the duodenum and stomach were not met. Using the three-beam arrangements, the dose to the left kidney could be significant decreased when compared to a two-beam strategy (p < 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings we recommend a three-beam configuration with at least one non-coplanar beam for dose-escalated SIB with rMFO-IMPT in advanced pancreatic cancer patients achieving a homogeneous dose distribution in the target while simultaneously minimizing the dose to the organs at risk. Further treatment planning studies on aspects of breathing and organ motion need to be performed.

Proton beam therapy for gastrointestinal cancers: past, present, and future

Despite the conformality of modern X-ray therapy limiting high dose received by normal tissues the physical properties of X-rays make it impossible to avoid dose being delivered distal to the target. This "exit dose" is likely clinically significant especially for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers when considering that even low dose received by the heart, lungs, bowel, and other radiosensitive structures can lead to morbidity and even may affect long-term tumor control. In contrast, proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers no "exit dose" and a growing body of literature suggests that this may improve clinical outcomes by reducing toxicity and even allowing for safe dose intensification to enhance tumor control. While there are not yet robust prospective data demonstrating the role of PBT for GI cancers, emerging retrospective data provide a strong rationale for continued study of how PBT may improve the therapeutic ratio for these patients. Here we review these data as well as discuss ongoing clinical trials of PBT for GI cancers.

Pencil beam scanning versus passively scattered proton therapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer

Background

With an increasing number of proton centers capable of delivering pencil beam scanning (PBS), understanding the dosimetric differences in PBS compared to passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) for pancreatic cancer is of interest.

Methods

Optimized PBS plans were retrospectively generated for 11 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with PSPT to 59.4 Gy on a prospective trial. The primary tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. The same treatment couch, target coverage and normal tissue dose objectives were used for all plans. A Wilcoxon t-test was performed to compare various dosimetric points between the two plans for each patient.

Results

All target volume coverage goals were met in all PBS and passive scattering (PS) plans, except for the planning target volume (PTV) coverage goal (V100% >95%) which was not met in one PS plan (range, 81.8-98.9%). PBS was associated with a lower median relative dose (102.4% vs. 103.8%) to 10% of the PTV (P=0.001). PBS plans had a lower median duodenal V59.4 Gy (37.4% vs. 40.4%; P=0.014), lower small bowel median V59.4 Gy (0.11% vs. 0.37%; P=0.012), lower stomach median V59.4 Gy (0.01% vs. 0.1%; P=0.023), and lower median dose to 0.1 cc of the spinal cord {35.0 vs. 38.7 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)]; P=0.001}. Liver dose was higher in PBS plans for median V5 Gy (24.1% vs. 20.2%; P=0.032), V20 Gy (3.2% vs. 2.8%; P=0.010), and V25 Gy (2.6% vs. 2.2%; P=0.019). There was no difference in kidney dose between PBS and PS plans.

Conclusions

Proton therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer using PBS was not clearly associated with clinically meaningful reductions in normal tissue dose compared to PS. Some statistically significant improvements in PTV coverage were achieved using PBS. PBS may offer improved conformality for the treatment of irregular targets, and further evaluation of PBS and PS incorporating elective nodal irradiation should be considered.

Initial experience with intensity modulated proton therapy for intact, clinically localized pancreas cancer: Clinical implementation, dosimetric analysis, acute treatment-related adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes

Purpose

Pencil-beam scanning intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may allow for an improvement in the therapeutic ratio compared with conventional techniques of radiation therapy delivery for pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical implementation of IMPT for intact and clinically localized pancreatic cancer, perform a matched dosimetric comparison with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and report acute adverse event (AE) rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of health-related quality of life.

Methods and materials

Between July 2016 and March 2017, 13 patients with localized pancreatic cancer underwent concurrent capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation therapy (CRT) utilizing IMPT to a dose of 50 Gy (radiobiological effectiveness: 1.1). A VMAT plan was generated for each patient to use for dosimetric comparison. Patients were assessed prospectively for AEs and completed PRO questionnaires utilizing the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary at baseline and upon completion of CRT.

Results

There was no difference in mean target coverage between IMPT and VMAT (P > .05). IMPT offered significant reductions in dose to organs at risk, including the small bowel, duodenum, stomach, large bowel, liver, and kidneys (P < .05). All patients completed treatment without radiation therapy breaks. The median weight loss during treatment was 1.6 kg (range, 0.1-5.7 kg). No patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary scores prior to versus at the end of CRT were 142 (range, 113-163) versus 136 (range, 107-173; P = .18).

Conclusions

Pencil-beam scanning IMPT was feasible and offered significant reductions in radiation exposure to multiple gastrointestinal organs at risk. IMPT was associated with no grade ≥3 gastrointestinal AEs and no change in baseline PROs, but the conclusions are limited due to the patient sample size. Further clinical studies are warranted to evaluate whether these dosimetric advantages translate into clinically meaningful benefits.

Improve dosimetric outcome in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer treatment using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy

Background

To evaluate spot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPArc) and multi-field robust optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (RO-IMPT) in treating stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Methods

Two groups of stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC patients (group 1: eight patients with tumor motion less than 5 mm; group 2: six patients with tumor motion equal to or more than 5 mm) were re-planned with SPArc and RO-IMPT. Both plans were generated using robust optimization to achieve an optimal coverage with 99% of internal target volume (ITV) receiving 66 Gy (RBE) in 33 fractions. The dosimetric results and plan robustness were compared for both groups. The interplay effect was evaluated based on the ITV coverage by single-fraction 4D dynamic dose. Total delivery time was simulated based on a full gantry rotation with energy-layer-switching-time (ELST) from 0.2 to 4 s. Statistical analysis was also evaluated via Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

Both SPArc and RO-IMPT plans achieved similar robust target volume coverage for all patients, while SPArc significantly reduced the doses to critical structures as well as the interplay effect. Specifically, compared to RO-IMPT, SPArc reduced the average integral dose by 7.4% (p = 0.001), V₂₀, and mean lung dose by an average of 3.2% (p = 0.001) and 1.6 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.001), the max dose to cord by 4.6 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.04), and the mean dose to heart and esophagus by 0.7 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.01) and 1.7 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.003) respectively. The average total estimated delivery time was 160.1 s, 213.8 s, 303.4 s, 840.8 s based on ELST of 0.2 s, 0.5 s, 1 s, and 4 s for SPArc plans, compared with the respective values of 182.0 s (p = 0.001), 207.9 s (p = 0.22), 250.9 s (p = 0.001), 509.4 s (p = 0.001) for RO-IMPT plans. Hence, SPArc plans could be clinically feasible when using a shorter ELST.

Conclusions

This study has indicated that SPArc could further improve the dosimetric results in patients with locally advanced stage NSCLC and potentially be implemented into routine clinical practice.

The Role of Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer in the Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Settings

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although surgery remains the only curative treatment, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are frequently used. In the adjuvant setting, radiation is usually delivered with chemotherapy to eradicate residual microscopic or macroscopic disease in the resection bed. Neoadjuvant radiation therapy has become more frequently utilized. This article reviews the historical and modern literature regarding radiation therapy in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, focusing on the evolution of radiation therapy techniques and clinical trials in an attempt to identify patients best suited to receiving radiation therapy.

Comparing the dosimetric impact of interfractional anatomical changes in photon, proton and carbon ion radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer patients

Radiotherapy using charged particles is characterized by a low dose to the surrounding healthy organs, while delivering a high dose to the tumor. However, interfractional anatomical changes can greatly affect the robustness of particle therapy. Therefore, we compared the dosimetric impact of interfractional anatomical changes (i.e. body contour differences and gastrointestinal gas volume changes) in photon, proton and carbon ion therapy for pancreatic cancer patients. In this retrospective planning study, photon, proton and carbon ion treatment plans were created for 9 patients. Fraction dose calculations were performed using daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. To this end, the planning CT was deformably registered to each CBCT; gastrointestinal gas volumes were delineated on the CBCTs and copied to the deformed CT. Fraction doses were accumulated rigidly. To compare planned and accumulated dose, dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the planned and accumulated dose of the different radiotherapy modalities were determined for the internal gross tumor volume, internal clinical target volume (iCTV) and organs-at-risk (OARs; duodenum, stomach, kidneys, liver and spinal cord). Photon plans were highly robust against interfractional anatomical changes. The difference between the planned and accumulated DVH parameters for the photon plans was less than 0.5% for the target and OARs. In both proton and carbon ion therapy, however, coverage of the iCTV was considerably reduced for the accumulated dose compared with the planned dose. The near-minimum dose ([Formula: see text]) of the iCTV reduced with 8% for proton therapy and with 10% for carbon ion therapy. The DVH parameters of the OARs differed less than 3% for both particle modalities. Fractionated radiotherapy using photons is highly robust against interfractional anatomical changes. In proton and carbon ion therapy, such changes can severely reduce the dose coverage of the target.

Evaluation of motion mitigation using abdominal compression in the clinical implementation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy of liver tumors

PURPOSE

To determine whether individual liver tumor patients can be safely treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy. This study reports a planning preparation workflow that can be used for beam angle selection and the evaluation of the efficacy of abdominal compression (AC) to mitigate motion.

METHODS

Four-dimensional computed tomography scans (4DCT) with and without AC were available from 10 liver tumor patients with fluoroscopy-proven motion reduction by AC, previously treated using photons. For each scan, the motion amplitudes and the motion-induced variation of water-equivalent thickness (ΔWET) in each voxel of the target volume were evaluated during treatment plan preparation. Optimal proton beam angles were selected after volume analysis of the respective beam-specific planning target volume (BSPTV). M_⊥80 and ΔWET₈₀ derived from the 80th percentiles of perpendicular motion amplitude (M_⊥ ) and ΔWET were compared with and without AC. Proton plans were created on the average CT to achieve target coverage similar to that of the conventional photon treatments. 4D dynamic dose calculation was performed postplan by synchronizing proton beam delivery timing patterns to the 4DCT phases to assess interplay and fractionation effects, and to determine motion criteria for subsequent patient treatment.

RESULTS

Selected coplanar beam angles ranged between 180° and 39°, primarily from right lateral (oblique) and posterior (oblique) directions. While AC produced a significant reduction in mean Liver-GTV dose, any reduction in mean heart dose was patient dependent and not significant. Similarly, AC resulted in reductions in M_⊥ , ΔWET, and BSPTV volumes and improved dose degradation (ΔD₉₅ and ΔD₁ ) within the CTV. For small motion (M_⊥80 < 7 mm and ΔWET₈₀ < 5 mm), motion mitigation was not needed. For moderate motion (M_⊥80 7-10 mm or ΔWET₈₀ 5-7 mm), AC produced a modest improvement. For large motion (M_⊥80 > 10 mm or ΔWET₈₀ > 7 mm), AC and/or some other form of mitigation strategies were required.

CONCLUSION

A workflow for screening patients' motion characteristics and optimizing beam angle selection was established for the pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment of liver tumors. Abdominal compression was found to be useful at mitigation of moderate and large motion.

MRI quantification of pancreas motion as a function of patient setup for particle therapy -a preliminary study

Particle therapy (PT) has shown positive therapeutic results in local control of locally advanced pancreatic lesions. PT effectiveness is highly influenced by target localization accuracy both in space, since the pancreas is located in proximity to radiosensitive vital organs, and in time as it is subject to substantial breathing-related motion. The purpose of this preliminary study was to quantify pancreas range of motion under typical PT treatment conditions. Three common immobilization devices (vacuum cushion, thermoplastic mask, and compressor belt) were evaluated on five male patients in prone and supine positions. Retrospective four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging data were reconstructed for each condition and the pancreas was manually segmented on each of six breathing phases. A k-means algorithm was then applied on the manually segmented map in order to obtain clusters representative of the three pancreas segments: head, body, and tail. Centers of mass (COM) for the pancreas and its segments were computed, as well as their displacements with respect to a reference breathing phase (beginning exhalation). The median three-dimensional COM displacements were in the range of 3 mm. Latero-lateral and superior-inferior directions had a higher range of motion than the anterior-posterior direction. Motion analysis of the pancreas segments showed slightly lower COM displacements for the head cluster compared to the tail cluster, especially in prone position. Statistically significant differences were found within patients among the investigated setups. Hence a patient-specific approach, rather than a general strategy, is suggested to define the optimal treatment setup in the frame of a millimeter positioning accuracy.

Spot-Scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) Therapy: The First Robust and Delivery-Efficient Spot-Scanning Proton Arc Therapy

PURPOSE

To present a novel robust and delivery-efficient spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy technique.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A SPArc optimization algorithm was developed that integrates control point resampling, energy layer redistribution, energy layer filtration, and energy layer resampling. The feasibility of such a technique was evaluated using sample patients: 1 patient with locally advanced head and neck oropharyngeal cancer with bilateral lymph node coverage, and 1 with a nonmobile lung cancer. Plan quality, robustness, and total estimated delivery time were compared with the robust optimized multifield step-and-shoot arc plan without SPArc optimization (Arc_multi-field) and the standard robust optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan. Dose-volume histograms of target and organs at risk were analyzed, taking into account the setup and range uncertainties. Total delivery time was calculated on the basis of a 360° gantry room with 1 revolutions per minute gantry rotation speed, 2-millisecond spot switching time, 1-nA beam current, 0.01 minimum spot monitor unit, and energy layer switching time of 0.5 to 4 seconds.

RESULTS

The SPArc plan showed potential dosimetric advantages for both clinical sample cases. Compared with IMPT, SPArc delivered 8% and 14% less integral dose for oropharyngeal and lung cancer cases, respectively. Furthermore, evaluating the lung cancer plan compared with IMPT, it was evident that the maximum skin dose, the mean lung dose, and the maximum dose to ribs were reduced by 60%, 15%, and 35%, respectively, whereas the conformity index was improved from 7.6 (IMPT) to 4.0 (SPArc). The total treatment delivery time for lung and oropharyngeal cancer patients was reduced by 55% to 60% and 56% to 67%, respectively, when compared with Arc_multi-field plans.

CONCLUSION

The SPArc plan is the first robust and delivery-efficient proton spot-scanning arc therapy technique, which could potentially be implemented into routine clinical practice.

Clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) is frequently shown to be dosimetrically superior to photon radiotherapy (RT), though supporting data for clinical benefit are severely limited. Because of the potential for toxicity reduction in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, we systematically reviewed the literature on clinical outcomes (survival/toxicity) of PBT.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, abstracts from meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group, and American Society of Clinical Oncology was conducted for publications from 2000-2015. Thirty-eight original investigations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Although results of PBT are not directly comparable to historical data, outcomes roughly mirror previous data, generally with reduced toxicities for PBT in some neoplasms. For esophageal cancer, PBT is associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stay as compared to photon radiation, while achieving comparable local control (LC) and overall survival (OS). In pancreatic cancer, numerical survival for resected/unresected cases is also similar to existing photon data, whereas grade ≥3 nausea/emesis and post-operative complications are numerically lower than those reported with photon RT. The strongest data in support of PBT for HCC comes from phase II trials demonstrating very low toxicities, and a phase III trial of PBT versus transarterial chemoembolization demonstrating trends towards improved LC and progression-free survival (PFS) with PBT, along with fewer post-treatment hospitalizations. Survival and toxicity data for cholangiocarcinoma, liver metastases, and retroperitoneal sarcoma are also roughly equivalent to historical photon controls. There are two small reports for gastric cancer and three for anorectal cancer; these are not addressed further.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited quality (and quantity) of data hamper direct comparisons and conclusions. However, the available data, despite the inherent caveats and limitations, suggest that PBT offers the potential to achieve significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities without compromising survival or LC for multiple GI malignancies. Several randomized comparative trials are underway that will provide more definitive answers.

Dosimetric and clinical toxicity comparison of critical organ preservation with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and RapidArc for the treatment of locally advanced cancer of the pancreatic head

PURPOSE

We compared dosimetry and clinical toxicity for 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-crt), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt), and RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, U.S.A.) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (lapcc). We hypothesized that the technique with better sparing of organs at risk (oars) and better target dose distributions could lead to decreased clinical toxicity.

METHODS

The study analyzed 280 patients with lapcc who had undergone radiotherapy. The dosimetry comparison was performed using 20 of those patients. Dose-volume histograms for the target volume and the oars were compared. The clinical toxicity comparison used the 280 patients who received radiation with 3D-crt, imrt, or RapidArc.

RESULTS

Compared with 3D-crt, RapidArc and imrt both achieved a better conformal index, homogeneity index, V95%, and V110%. Compared with 3D-crt or imrt, RapidArc reduced the V10, V20, and mean dose to duodenum, the V20 of the right kidney, and the liver mean dose. Compared with 3D-crt, RapidArc reduced the V35, and V45 of duodenum, the mean dose to small bowel, and the V15 of right kidney. The incidences of grades 3 and 4 diarrhea (p = 0.037) and anorexia (p = 0.042) were lower with RapidArc than with 3D-crt, and the incidences of grades 3 and 4 diarrhea (p = 0.027) were lower with RapidArc than with imrt.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with 3D-crt or imrt, RapidArc showed better sparing of oars, especially duodenum, small bowel, and right kidney. Also, fewer acute grades 3 and 4 gastrointestinal toxicities were seen with RapidArc than with 3D-crt or imrt. A technique with better sparing of oars and better target dose distributions could result in decreased clinical toxicities during radiation treatment for lapcc.

Comparison of three dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for low radiation exposure of normal tissue in patients with prostate cancer

Radiotherapy has an important role in the treatment of prostate cancer. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques are all applied for this purpose. However, the risk of secondary radiation-induced bladder cancer is significantly elevated in irradiated patients compared surgery-only or watchful waiting groups. There are also reports of risk of secondary cancer with low doses to normal tissues. This study was designed to compare received volumes of low doses among 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT techniques for prostate patients. Ten prostate cancer patients were selected retrospectively for this planning study. Treatment plans were generated using 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT techniques. Conformity index (CI), homogenity index (HI), receiving 5 Gy of the volume (V5%), receiving 2 Gy of the volume (V2%), receiving 1 Gy of the volume (V1%) and monitor units (MUs) were compared. This study confirms that VMAT has slightly better CI while thev olume of low doses was higher. VMAT had lower MUs than IMRT. 3D-CRT had the lowest MU, CI and HI. If target coverage and normal tissue sparing are comparable between different treatment techniques, the risk of second malignancy should be a important factor in the selection of treatment.

Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies

To compare the roles of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) therapy as compared to simple and complex 3-dimensional chemoradiotherpy (3DCRT) planning for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In all, 12 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy (8) or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (4) were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy planning was performed for 4 treatment techniques: simple 4-field box, complex 5-field 3DCRT, 5 to 6-field IMRT, and single-arc VMAT. All volumes were approved by a single observer in accordance with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Pancreas Contouring Atlas. Plans included tumor/tumor bed and regional lymph nodes to 45Gy; with tumor/tumor bed boosted to 50.4Gy, at least 95% of planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for multiple end points, treatment planning, and delivery time were assessed. Complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans significantly (p < 0.05) decreased mean kidney dose, mean liver dose, liver (V30, V35), stomach (D10%), stomach (V45), mean right kidney dose, and right kidney (V15) as compared with the simple 4-field plans that are most commonly reported in the literature. IMRT plans resulted in decreased mean liver dose, liver (V35), and left kidney (V15, V18, V20). VMAT plans decreased small bowel (D10%, D15%), small bowel (V35, V45), stomach (D10%, D15%), stomach (V35, V45), mean liver dose, liver (V35), left kidney (V15, V18, V20), and right kidney (V18, V20). VMAT plans significantly decreased small bowel (D10%, D15%), left kidney (V20), and stomach (V45) as compared with IMRT plans. Treatment planning and delivery times were most efficient for simple 4-field box and VMAT. Excluding patient setup and imaging, average treatment delivery was within 10minutes for simple and complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatments. This article shows significant improvements in 3D plan performance with complex planning over the more frequently compared 3- or 4-field simple 3D planning techniques. VMAT plans continue to demonstrate potential for the most organ sparing. However, further studies are required to identify if dosimetric benefits associated with inverse optimized planning can be translated into clinical benefits and if these treatment techniques are value-added therapies for this group of patients with cancer.

Proton therapy for pancreatic cancer

Radiotherapy is commonly offered to patients with pancreatic malignancies although its ultimate utility is compromised since the pancreas is surrounded by exquisitely radiosensitive normal tissues, such as the duodenum, stomach, jejunum, liver, and kidneys. Proton radiotherapy can be used to create dose distributions that conform to tumor targets with significant normal tissue sparing. Because of this, protons appear to represent a superior modality for radiotherapy delivery to patients with unresectable tumors and those receiving postoperative radiotherapy. A particularly exciting opportunity for protons also exists for patients with resectable and marginally resectable disease. In this paper, we review the current literature on proton therapy for pancreatic cancer and discuss scenarios wherein the improvement in the therapeutic index with protons may have the potential to change the management paradigm for this malignancy.

Gastrointestinal cancer: nonliver proton therapy for gastrointestinal cancers

Multimodality therapy for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers carries considerable risk for toxicity; even single-modality radiation therapy in this population carries with it a daunting side effect profile. Supportive care can certainly mitigate some of the morbidity, but there remain numerous associated acute and late complications that can compromise the therapy and ultimately the outcome. Gastrointestinal cancers inherently occur amid visceral organs that are particularly sensitive to radiotherapy, creating a very narrow therapeutic window for aggressive cell kill with minimal normal tissue damage. Radiation therapy is a critical component of locoregional control, but its use has historically been limited by toxicity concerns, both real and perceived. Fundamental to this is the fact that long-term clinical experience with radiation in GI cancers derives almost entirely from 2-dimensional radiation (plain x-ray-based planning) and subsequently 3-dimensional conformal radiation. The recent use of intensity-modulated photon-based techniques is not well represented in most of the landmark chemoradiation trials. Furthermore, the elusive search for efficacious but tolerable local therapy in GI malignancies raises the possibility that proton radiotherapy's physical and dosimetric differences relative to conventional therapy may make it better suited to the challenge. In many sites, local recurrences after chemoradiation pose a particular challenge, and reirradiation in these sites may be done successfully with proton radiotherapy.