Comparison of 3D and 4D robustly optimized proton treatment plans for non-small cell lung cancer patients with tumour motion amplitudes larger than 5 mm

Adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy using 4D robust planning: a proof-of-concept for the application of dose mimicking approach

Objective.A four-dimensional robust optimisation (4DRO) is usually employed when the tumour respiratory motion needs to be addressed. However, it is computationally demanding, and an automated method is preferable for adaptive planning to avoid manual trial-and-error. This study proposes a 4DRO technique based on dose mimicking for automated adaptive planning.Approach.Initial plans for 4DRO intensity modulated proton therapy were created on an average CT for four patients with clinical target volume (CTV) in the lung, oesophagus, or pancreas, respectively. These plans were robustly optimised using three phases of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) and accounting for setup and density uncertainties. Weekly 4DCTs were used for adaptive replanning, using a constant relative biological effectiveness (cRBE) of 1.1. Two methods were used: (1) template-based adaptive (TA) planning and (2) dose-mimicking-based adaptive (MA) planning. The plans were evaluated using variable RBE (vRBE) weighted doses and biologically consistent dose accumulation (BCDA).Main results.MA and TA plans had comparable CTV coverage except for one patient where the MA plan had a higher D98 and lower D2 but with an increased D2 in few organs at risk (OARs). CTV D98 deviations in non-adaptive plans from the initial plans were up to -7.2 percentage points (p.p.) in individual cases and -1.8 p.p. when using BCDA. For the OARs, MA plans showed a reduced mean dose and D2 compared to the TA plans, with few exceptions. The vRBE-weighted accumulated doses had a mean dose and D2 difference of up to 0.3 Gy and 0.5 Gy, respectively, in the OARs with respect to cRBE-weighted doses.Significance.MA plans indicate better performance in target coverage and OAR dose sparing compared to the TA plans in 4DRO adaptive planning. Moreover, MA method is capable of handling both forms of anatomical variation, namely, changes in density and relative shifts in the position of OARs.

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.

A review of the clinical introduction of 4D particle therapy research concepts

Background and purpose

Many 4D particle therapy research concepts have been recently translated into clinics, however, remaining substantial differences depend on the indication and institute-related aspects. This work aims to summarise current state-of-the-art 4D particle therapy technology and outline a roadmap for future research and developments.

Material and methods

This review focused on the clinical implementation of 4D approaches for imaging, treatment planning, delivery and evaluation based on the 2021 and 2022 4D Treatment Workshops for Particle Therapy as well as a review of the most recent surveys, guidelines and scientific papers dedicated to this topic.

Results

Available technological capabilities for motion surveillance and compensation determined the course of each 4D particle treatment. 4D motion management, delivery techniques and strategies including imaging were diverse and depended on many factors. These included aspects of motion amplitude, tumour location, as well as accelerator technology driving the necessity of centre-specific dosimetric validation. Novel methodologies for X-ray based image processing and MRI for real-time tumour tracking and motion management were shown to have a large potential for online and offline adaptation schemes compensating for potential anatomical changes over the treatment course. The latest research developments were dominated by particle imaging, artificial intelligence methods and FLASH adding another level of complexity but also opportunities in the context of 4D treatments.

Conclusion

This review showed that the rapid technological advances in radiation oncology together with the available intrafractional motion management and adaptive strategies paved the way towards clinical implementation.

Review and recommendations on deformable image registration uncertainties for radiotherapy applications

Deformable image registration (DIR) is a versatile tool used in many applications in radiotherapy (RT). DIR algorithms have been implemented in many commercial treatment planning systems providing accessible and easy-to-use solutions. However, the geometric uncertainty of DIR can be large and difficult to quantify, resulting in barriers to clinical practice. Currently, there is no agreement in the RT community on how to quantify these uncertainties and determine thresholds that distinguish a good DIR result from a poor one. This review summarises the current literature on sources of DIR uncertainties and their impact on RT applications. Recommendations are provided on how to handle these uncertainties for patient-specific use, commissioning, and research. Recommendations are also provided for developers and vendors to help users to understand DIR uncertainties and make the application of DIR in RT safer and more reliable.

Parameter based 4D dose calculations for proton therapy

Background and purpose Retrospective log file-based analysis provides the actual dose delivered based on the patient's breathing and the daily beam-delivery dynamics. To predict the motion sensitivity of the treatment plan on a patient-specific basis before treatment start a prospective tool is required. Such a parameter-based tool has been investigated with the aim to be used in clinical routine. Materials and Methods 4D dose calculations (4DDC) were performed for seven cancer patients with small breathing motion treated with scanned pulsed proton beams. Validation of the parameter-based 4DDC (p-4DDC) method was performed with an anthropomorphic phantom and patient data employing measurements and a log file-based 4DDC tool. The dose volume histogram parameters (Dx%) were investigated for the target and the organs at risk, compared to static and the file-based approach. Results The difference between the measured and the p-4DDC dose was within the deviation of the measurements. The maximum deviation was 0.4Gy. For the planning target volume D98% varied up to 15% compared to the static scenario, while the results from the log file and p-4DDC agreed within 2%. For the liver patients, D33%liver deviated up to 35% compared to static and 10% comparing the two 4DDC tools, while for the pancreas patients the D1%stomach varied up to 45% and 11%, respectively. Conclusion The results showed that p-4DDC could be used prospectively. The next step will be the clinical implementation of the p-4DDC tool, which can support a decision to either adapt the treatment plan or apply motion mitigation strategies.