1
|
Sterpin E, Widesott L, Poels K, Hoogeman M, Korevaar EW, Lowe M, Molinelli S, Fracchiolla F. Robustness evaluation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning: A systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2024; 197:110365. [PMID: 38830538 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Revised: 04/30/2024] [Accepted: 05/29/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Sterpin
- KU Leuven - Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium; UCLouvain - Institution de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Center of Molecular Imaging Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium; Particle Therapy Interuniversity Center Leuven - PARTICLE, Leuven, Belgium.
| | - L Widesott
- Proton Therapy Center - UO Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| | - K Poels
- Particle Therapy Interuniversity Center Leuven - PARTICLE, Leuven, Belgium; UZ Leuven, Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M Hoogeman
- Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; HollandPTC, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - E W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - M Lowe
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - S Molinelli
- Fondazione CNAO - Medical Physics Unit, Pavia, Italy
| | - F Fracchiolla
- Proton Therapy Center - UO Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Knäusl B, Belotti G, Bertholet J, Daartz J, Flampouri S, Hoogeman M, Knopf AC, Lin H, Moerman A, Paganelli C, Rucinski A, Schulte R, Shimizu S, Stützer K, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Czerska K. A review of the clinical introduction of 4D particle therapy research concepts. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 29:100535. [PMID: 38298885 PMCID: PMC10828898 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 02/02/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Knäusl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Gabriele Belotti
- Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Jenny Bertholet
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Juliane Daartz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Mischa Hoogeman
- Department of Medical Physics & Informatics, HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Antje C Knopf
- Institut für Medizintechnik und Medizininformatik Hochschule für Life Sciences FHNW, Muttenz, Switzerland
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Astrid Moerman
- Department of Medical Physics & Informatics, HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Chiara Paganelli
- Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, PL-31342 Krakow, Poland
| | - Reinhard Schulte
- Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University
| | - Shing Shimizu
- Department of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Kristin Stützer
- OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden – Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| | - Katarzyna Czerska
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
de Koster RJC, Thummerer A, Scandurra D, Langendijk JA, Both S. Technical note: Evaluation of deep learning based synthetic CTs clinical readiness for dose and NTCP driven head and neck adaptive proton therapy. Med Phys 2023; 50:8023-8033. [PMID: 37831597 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Revised: 09/19/2023] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adaptive proton therapy workflows rely on accurate imaging throughout the treatment course. Our centre currently utilizes weekly repeat CTs (rCTs) for treatment monitoring and plan adaptations. However, deep learning-based methods have recently shown to successfully correct CBCT images, which suffer from severe imaging artifacts, and generate high quality synthetic CT (sCT) images which enable CBCT-based proton dose calculations. PURPOSE To compare daily CBCT-based sCT images to planning CTs (pCT) and rCTs of head and neck (HN) cancer patients to investigate the dosimetric accuracy of CBCT-based sCTs in a scenario mimicking actual clinical practice. METHODS Data of 56 HN cancer patients, previously treated with proton therapy was used to generate 1.962 sCT images, using a previously developed and trained deep convolutional neural network. Clinical IMPT treatment plans were recalculated on the pCT, weekly rCTs and daily sCTs. The dosimetric accuracy of sCTs was compared to same day rCTs and the initial planning CT. As a reference, rCTs were also compared to pCTs. The dose difference between sCTs and rCTs/pCT was quantified by calculating the D98 difference for target volumes and Dmean difference for organs-at-risk. To investigate the clinical relevancy of possible dose differences, NTCP values were calculated for dysphagia and xerostomia. RESULTS For target volumes, only minor dose differences were found for sCT versus rCT and sCT versus pCT, with dose differences mostly within ±1.5%. Larger dose differences were observed in OARs, where a general shift towards positive differences was found, with the largest difference in the left parotid gland. Delta NTCP values for grade 2 dysphagia and xerostomia were within ±2.5% for 90% of the sCTs. CONCLUSIONS Target doses showed high similarity between rCTs and sCTs. Further investigations are required to identify the origin of the dose differences at OAR levels and its relevance in clinical decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rutger J C de Koster
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Adrian Thummerer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Daniel Scandurra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Arif WM, Elsinga PH, Steenbakkers RJ, Noordzij W, Barazzuol L, Siang KNW, Brouwer CL, Giacobbo BL, Dierckx RA, Borra RJ, Luurtsema G. Effects of proton therapy on regional [ 18F]FDG uptake in non-tumor brain regions of patients treated for head and neck cancer. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 42:100652. [PMID: 37415639 PMCID: PMC10320497 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Revised: 05/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/04/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Previous pre-clinical research using [18F]FDG-PET has shown that whole-brain photon-based radiotherapy can affect brain glucose metabolism. This study, aimed to investigate how these findings translate into regional changes in brain [18F]FDG uptake in patients with head and neck cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Materials and methods Twenty-three head and neck cancer patients treated with IMPT and available [18F]FDG scans before and at 3 months follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Regional assessment of the [18F]FDG standardized uptake value (SUV) parameters and radiation dose in the left (L) and right (R) hippocampi, L and R occipital lobes, cerebellum, temporal lobe, L and R parietal lobes and frontal lobe were evaluated to understand the relationship between regional changes in SUV metrics and radiation dose. Results Three months after IMPT, [18F]FDG brain uptake calculated using SUVmean and SUVmax, was significantly higher than that before IMPT. The absolute SUVmean after IMPT was significantly higher than before IMPT in seven regions of the brain (p ≤ 0.01), except for the R (p = 0.11) and L (p = 0.15) hippocampi. Absolute and relative changes were variably correlated with the regional maximum and mean doses received in most of the brain regions. Conclusion Our findings suggest that 3 months after completion of IMPT for head and neck cancer, significant increases in the uptake of [18F]FDG (reflected by SUVmean and SUVmax) can be detected in several individual key brain regions, and when evaluated jointly, it shows a negative correlation with the mean dose. Future studies are needed to assess whether and how these results could be used for the early identification of patients at risk for adverse cognitive effects of radiation doses in non-tumor tissues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wejdan M. Arif
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
- King Saud University, College of Applied Medical Science, Department of Radiological Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Philip H. Elsinga
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Roel J.H.M. Steenbakkers
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Walter Noordzij
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Lara Barazzuol
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells and Systems, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Kelvin N.G. Wei Siang
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Charlotte L. Brouwer
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Bruno Lima Giacobbo
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Rudi A.J.O. Dierckx
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Ronald J.H. Borra
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Gert Luurtsema
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Engwall E, Marthin O, Wase V, Sundström J, Mikhalev V, de Jong BA, Langendijk JA, Melbéus H, Andersson B, Korevaar EW, Both S, Bokrantz R, Glimelius L, Fredriksson A. Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities. Med Phys 2023; 50:5723-5733. [PMID: 37482909 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times. PURPOSE To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course. METHODS For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia. RESULTS The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2). CONCLUSIONS Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Bas A de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Erik W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Reiners K, Dagan R, Holtzman A, Bryant C, Andersson S, Nilsson R, Hong L, Johnson P, Zhang Y. CBCT-Based Dose Monitoring and Adaptive Planning Triggers in Head and Neck PBS Proton Therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:3881. [PMID: 37568697 PMCID: PMC10417147 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15153881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the feasibility of using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived synthetic CTs to monitor the daily dose and trigger a plan review for adaptive proton therapy (APT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. METHODS For 84 HNC patients treated with proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS), same-day CBCT and verification CT (vfCT) pairs were retrospectively collected. The ground truth CT (gtCT) was created by deforming the vfCT to the same-day CBCT, and it was then used as a dosimetric baseline and for establishing plan review trigger recommendations. Two different synthetic CT algorithms were tested; the corrected CBCT (corrCBCT) was created using an iterative image correction method and the virtual CT (virtCT) was created by deforming the planning CT to the CBCT, followed by a low-density masking process. Clinical treatment plans were recalculated on the image sets for evaluation. RESULTS Plan review trigger criteria for adaptive therapy were established after closely reviewing the cohort data. Compared to the vfCT, the corrCBCT and virtCT reliably produced dosimetric data more similar to the gtCT. The average discrepancy in D99 for high-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) was 1.1%, 0.7%, and 0.4% and for standard-risk CTVs was 1.8%, 0.5%, and 0.5% for the vfCT, corrCBCT, and virtCT, respectively. CONCLUSION Streamlined APT has been achieved with the proposed plan review criteria and CBCT-based synthetic CT workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keaton Reiners
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA; (K.R.); (R.D.); (C.B.); (P.J.)
- Medical Physics Graduate Program, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Roi Dagan
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA; (K.R.); (R.D.); (C.B.); (P.J.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Adam Holtzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA;
| | - Curtis Bryant
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA; (K.R.); (R.D.); (C.B.); (P.J.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | | | - Rasmus Nilsson
- RaySearch Laboratories, SE-103 65 Stockholm, Sweden; (S.A.); (R.N.)
| | - Liu Hong
- Ion Beam Applications S.A., 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium;
| | - Perry Johnson
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA; (K.R.); (R.D.); (C.B.); (P.J.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Yawei Zhang
- University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA; (K.R.); (R.D.); (C.B.); (P.J.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
de Jong BA, Korevaar EW, Maring A, Werkman CI, Scandurra D, Janssens G, Both S, Langendijk JA. Proton arc therapy increases the benefit of proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients in the model based clinic. Radiother Oncol 2023; 184:109670. [PMID: 37059337 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Revised: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 04/05/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In the model-based approach, patients qualify for proton therapy when the reduction in risk of toxicity (ΔNTCP) obtained with IMPT relative to VMAT is larger than predefined thresholds as defined by the Dutch National Indication Protocol (NIPP). Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging technology which has the potential to further decrease NTCPs compared to IMPT. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of PAT on the number of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients that qualify for proton therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective cohort of 223 OPC patients subjected to the model-based selection procedure was investigated. 33 (15%) patients were considered unsuitable for proton treatment before plan comparison. When IMPT was compared to VMAT for the remaining 190 patients, 148 (66%) patients qualified for protons and 42 (19%) patients did not. For these 42 patients treated with VMAT, robust PAT plans were generated. RESULTS PAT plans provided better or similar target coverage compared to IMPT plans. In the PAT plans, integral dose was significantly reduced by 18% relative to IMPT plans and by 54% relative to VMAT plans. PAT decreased the mean dose to numerous organs-at-risk (OARs), further reducing NTCPs. The ΔNTCP for PAT relative to VMAT passed the NIPP thresholds for 32 out of the 42 patients treated with VMAT, resulting in 180 patients (81%) of the complete cohort qualifying for protons. CONCLUSION PAT outperforms IMPT and VMAT, leading to a further reduction of NTCP-values and higher ΔNTCP-values, significantly increasing the percentage of OPC patients selected for proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bas A de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Erik W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Anneke Maring
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Chimène I Werkman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Daniel Scandurra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Argota-Perez R, Sharma MB, Elstrøm UV, Møller DS, Grau C, Jensen K, Holm AIS, Korreman SS. Dose and robustness comparison of nominal, daily and accumulated doses for photon and proton treatment of sinonasal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2022; 173:102-108. [PMID: 35667574 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2021] [Revised: 05/30/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The aim was to evaluate and compare the dosimetric effect and robustness towards day-to-day anatomical and setup variations in the delivered dose for photon and proton treatments of sinonasal cancer (SNC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Photon (VMAT) and proton (IMPT) plans were optimized retrospectively for 24 SNC patients. Synthetic CTs (synCT) were obtained by deforming the planning CT (pCT) to the anatomy of every daily cone-beam CT. Both VMAT and IMPT plans were recalculated on the synCTs. The recalculated daily dose was accumulated over the whole treatment on the pCT. Target coverage and dose to organs and risk (OARs) were evaluated for all patients for the nominal, daily and accumulated dose distribution. RESULTS In general, dose to OARs farther away from the target, including brain, chiasm and contralateral optic nerve, was lower for proton plans than photon plans. Whereas, OARs in proximity of the target received a lower dose for photon plans. For proton plans, the target coverage (volume of CTV receiving 95% of prescribed dose), V95%, fell below 99% for 9/24 patients in one or more fractions. For photon plans, 4/24 patients had one or more fractions where V95% fell below 99%. For accumulated doses, V95% was below 99% only in two cases, but above 98% for all patients. CONCLUSION Photon and proton treatment have different strengths regarding OAR sparing. The robustness was high for both treatment modalities. Patient selection for either proton or photon radiation therapy of SNC patients should be based on a case-by-case comparison.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Argota-Perez
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - M B Sharma
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - U V Elstrøm
- Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - D S Møller
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - C Grau
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark
| | - K Jensen
- Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - A I S Holm
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
| | - S S Korreman
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Nuyts S, Bollen H, Ng SP, Corry J, Eisbruch A, Mendenhall WM, Smee R, Strojan P, Ng WT, Ferlito A. Proton Therapy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Early Clinical Experience and Current Challenges. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14112587. [PMID: 35681568 PMCID: PMC9179360 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Revised: 05/18/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Proton therapy is a promising type of radiation therapy used to destroy tumor cells. It has the potential to further improve the outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer since it allows to minimize the radiation dose to vital structures around the tumor, leading to less toxicity. This paper describes the current experience worldwide with proton therapy in head and neck cancer. Abstract Proton therapy (PT) is a promising development in radiation oncology, with the potential to further improve outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). By utilizing the finite range of protons, healthy tissue can be spared from beam exit doses that would otherwise be irradiated with photon-based treatments. Current evidence on PT for HNSCC is limited to comparative dosimetric analyses and retrospective single-institution series. As a consequence, the recognized indications for the reimbursement of PT remain scarce in most countries. Nevertheless, approximately 100 PT centers are in operation worldwide, and initial experiences for HNSCC are being reported. This review aims to summarize the results of the early clinical experience with PT for HNSCC and the challenges that are currently faced.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra Nuyts
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Correspondence:
| | - Heleen Bollen
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Sweet Ping Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;
| | - June Corry
- Division of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;
| | - Avraham Eisbruch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA;
| | - William M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32209, USA;
| | - Robert Smee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Prince of Wales Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia;
| | - Primoz Strojan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia;
| | - Wai Tong Ng
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China;
| | - Alfio Ferlito
- Coordinator of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group, 35125 Padua, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|