Parameter based 4D dose calculations for proton therapy

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.

ScatterNet for projection-based 4D cone-beam computed tomography intensity correction of lung cancer patients

Background and purpose: In radiotherapy, dose calculations based on 4D cone beam CTs (4DCBCTs) require image intensity corrections. This retrospective study compared the dose calculation accuracy of a deep learning, projection-based scatter correction workflow (ScatterNet), to slower workflows: conventional 4D projection-based scatter correction (CBCTcor) and a deformable image registration (DIR)-based method (4DvCT). Materials and methods: For 26 lung cancer patients, planning CTs (pCTs), 4DCTs and CBCT projections were available. ScatterNet was trained with pairs of raw and corrected CBCT projections. Corrected projections from ScatterNet and the conventional workflow were reconstructed using MA-ROOSTER, yielding 4DCBCTSN and 4DCBCTcor. The 4DvCT was generated by 4DCT to 4DCBCT DIR, as part of the 4DCBCTcor workflow. Robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans were created on free-breathing pCTs. 4DCBCTSN was compared to 4DCBCTcor and the 4DvCT in terms of image quality and dose calculation accuracy (dose-volume-histogram parameters and 3 % /3 mm gamma analysis). Results: 4DCBCTSN resulted in an average mean absolute error of 87 HU and 102 HU when compared to 4DCBCTcor and 4DvCT respectively. High agreement was observed in targets with median dose differences of 0.4 Gy (4DCBCTSN-4DCBCTcor) and 0.3 Gy (4DCBCTSN-4DvCT). The gamma analysis showed high average 3 % /3 mm pass rates of 96 % for both 4DCBCTSN vs. 4DCBCTcor and 4DCBCTSN vs. 4DvCT. Conclusions: Accurate 4D dose calculations are feasible for lung cancer patients using ScatterNet for 4DCBCT correction. Average scatter correction times could be reduced from 10 min (4DCBCTcor) to 3.9 s , showing the clinical suitability of the proposed deep learning-based method.