1
|
Liu W, Feng H, Taylor PA, Kang M, Shen J, Saini J, Zhou J, Giap HB, Yu NY, Sio TS, Mohindra P, Chang JY, Bradley JD, Xiao Y, Simone CB, Lin L. NRG Oncology and Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group Patterns of Practice Survey and Consensus Recommendations on Pencil-Beam Scanning Proton Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Thoracic Malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 119:1208-1221. [PMID: 38395086 PMCID: PMC11209785 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2023] [Revised: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024]
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and hypofractionation using pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PBSPT) is an attractive option for thoracic malignancies. Combining the advantages of target coverage conformity and critical organ sparing from both PBSPT and SBRT, this new delivery technique has great potential to improve the therapeutic ratio, particularly for tumors near critical organs. Safe and effective implementation of PBSPT SBRT/hypofractionation to treat thoracic malignancies is more challenging than the conventionally fractionated PBSPT because of concerns of amplified uncertainties at the larger dose per fraction. The NRG Oncology and Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Thoracic Subcommittee surveyed proton centers in the United States to identify practice patterns of thoracic PBSPT SBRT/hypofractionation. From these patterns, we present recommendations for future technical development of proton SBRT/hypofractionation for thoracic treatment. Among other points, the recommendations highlight the need for volumetric image guidance and multiple computed tomography-based robust optimization and robustness tools to minimize further the effect of uncertainties associated with respiratory motion. Advances in direct motion analysis techniques are urgently needed to supplement current motion management techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
| | - Hongying Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona; College of Mechanical and Power Engineering, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, Hubei, China; Department of Radiation Oncology, Guangzhou Concord Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Paige A Taylor
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Jatinder Saini
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center and Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Jun Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Huan B Giap
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
| | - Nathan Y Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Terence S Sio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Pranshu Mohindra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Joe Y Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jeffrey D Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ying Xiao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Liyong Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bookbinder A, Selvaraj B, Zhao X, Yang Y, Bell BI, Pennock M, Tsai P, Tomé WA, Isabelle Choi J, Lin H, Simone CB, Guha C, Kang M. Validation and reproducibility of in vivo dosimetry for pencil beam scanned FLASH proton treatment in mice. Radiother Oncol 2024; 198:110404. [PMID: 38942121 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110404] [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: 03/14/2024] [Revised: 06/07/2024] [Accepted: 06/19/2024] [Indexed: 06/30/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate quality assurance (QA) techniques for in vivo dosimetry and establish its routine uses for proton FLASH small animal experiments with a saturated monitor chamber. METHODS AND MATERIALS 227 mice were irradiated at FLASH or conventional (CONV) dose rates with a 250 MeV FLASH-capable proton beamline using pencil beam scanning to characterize the proton FLASH effect on abdominal irradiation and examining various endpoints. A 2D strip ionization chamber array (SICA) detector was positioned upstream of collimation and used for in vivo dose monitoring during irradiation. Before each irradiation series, SICA signal was correlated with the isocenter dose at each delivered dose rate. Dose, dose rate, and 2D dose distribution for each mouse were monitored with the SICA detector. RESULTS Calibration curves between the upstream SICA detector signal and the delivered dose at isocenter had good linearity with minimal R2 values of 0.991 (FLASH) and 0.985 (CONV), and slopes were consistent for each modality. After reassigning mice, standard deviations were less than 1.85 % (FLASH) and 0.83 % (CONV) for all dose levels, with no individual subject dose falling outside a ± 3.6 % range of the designated dose. FLASH fields had a field-averaged dose rate of 79.0 ± 0.8 Gy/s and mean local average dose rate of 160.6 ± 3.0 Gy/s. In vivo dosimetry allowed for the accurate detection of variation between the delivered and the planned dose. CONCLUSION In vivo dosimetry benefits FLASH experiments through enabling real-time dose and dose rate monitoring allowing mouse cohort regrouping when beam fluctuation causes delivered dose to vary from planned dose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Yunjie Yang
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Brett I Bell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Michael Pennock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Pingfang Tsai
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wolfgang A Tomé
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; Institute for Onco-Physics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Charles B Simone
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Chandan Guha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; Institute for Onco-Physics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Minglei Kang
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhao X, Huang S, Lin H, Choi JI, Zhu K, Simone CB, Yan X, Kang M. A Novel Dose Rate Optimization Method to Maximize Ultrahigh-Dose-Rate Coverage of Critical Organs at Risk Without Compromising Dosimetry Metrics in Proton Pencil Beam Scanning FLASH Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)00735-1. [PMID: 38879087 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Revised: 05/12/2024] [Accepted: 06/09/2024] [Indexed: 07/10/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to investigate a dose rate optimization framework based on the spot-scanning patterns to improve ultrahigh-dose-rate coverage of critical organs at risk (OARs) for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) FLASH radiation therapy (ultrahigh dose-rate (often referred to as >40 Gy per second) delivery) and present implementation of a genetic algorithm (GA) method for spot sequence optimization to achieve PBS FLASH dose rate optimization under relatively low nozzle beam currents. METHODS AND MATERIALS First, a multifield FLASH plan was developed to meet all the dosimetric goals and optimal FLASH dose rate coverage by considering the deliverable minimum monitor unit constraint. Then, a GA method was implemented into the in-house treatment platform to maximize the dose rate by exploring the best spot delivery sequence. A phantom study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the dose rate optimization. Then, 10 consecutive plans for patients with lung cancer previously treated using PBS intensity-modulated proton therapy were optimized using 45 GyRBE in 3 fractions for both transmission and Bragg peak FLASH radiation therapy for further validation. The spot delivery sequence of each treatment field was optimized using this GA. The ultrahigh-dose-rate-volume histogram and dose rate coverage V40GyRBE/s were investigated to assess the efficacy of dose rate optimization quantitatively. RESULTS Using a relatively low monitor unit/spot of 150, corresponding to a nozzle beam current of 65 nA, the FLASH dose rate ratio V40GyRBE/s of the OAR contour of the core was increased from 0% to ∼60% in the phantom study. In the patients with lung cancer, the ultrahigh-dose-rate coverage V40GyRBE/s was improved from 15.2%, 15.5%, 17.6%, and 16.0% before the delivery sequence optimization to 31.8%, 43.5%, 47.6%, and 30.5% after delivery sequence optimization in the lungs-GTV (gross tumor volume), spinal cord, esophagus, and heart (for all, P < .001). When the beam current increased to 130 nA, V40GyRBE/s was improved from 45.1%, 47.1%, 51.2%, and 51.4% to 65.3%, 83.5%, 88.1%, and 69.4% (P < .05). The averaged V40GyRBE/s for the target and OARs increased from 12.9% to 41.6% and 46.3% to 77.5% for 65 and 130 nA, respectively, showing significant improvements based on a clinical proton system. After optimizing the dose rate for the Bragg peak FLASH technique with a beam current of 340 nA, the V40GyRBE/s values for the lung GTV, spinal cord, esophagus, and heart were increased by 8.9%, 15.8%, 22%, and 20.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS An optimal plan quality can be maintained as the spot delivery sequence optimization is a separate independent process after the plan optimization. Both the phantom and patient results demonstrated that novel spot delivery sequence optimization can effectively improve the ultrahigh-dose-rate coverage for critical OARs, which can potentially be applied in clinical practice for better OARs-sparing efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xingyi Zhao
- State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, and Key Laboratory of HEDP of the Ministry of Education, Center for Applied Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China; New York Proton Center, New York, New York
| | - Sheng Huang
- Radiation Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Kun Zhu
- State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, and Key Laboratory of HEDP of the Ministry of Education, Center for Applied Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Charles B Simone
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Xueqing Yan
- State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, and Key Laboratory of HEDP of the Ministry of Education, Center for Applied Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China.
| | - Minglei Kang
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York; Departments of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Valdes G, Scholey J, Nano TF, Gennatas ED, Mohindra P, Mohammed N, Zeng J, Kotecha R, Rosen LR, Chang J, Tsai HK, Urbanic JJ, Vargas CE, Yu NY, Ungar LH, Eaton E, Simone CB. Predicting the Effect of Proton Beam Therapy Technology on Pulmonary Toxicities for Patients With Locally Advanced Lung Cancer Enrolled in the Proton Collaborative Group Prospective Clinical Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 119:66-77. [PMID: 38000701 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.11.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Revised: 10/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/13/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to predict the probability of grade ≥2 pneumonitis or dyspnea within 12 months of receiving conventionally fractionated or mildly hypofractionated proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer using machine learning. METHODS AND MATERIALS Demographic and treatment characteristics were analyzed for 965 consecutive patients treated for lung cancer with conventionally fractionated or mildly hypofractionated (2.2-3 Gy/fraction) proton beam therapy across 12 institutions. Three machine learning models (gradient boosting, additive tree, and logistic regression with lasso regularization) were implemented to predict Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 grade ≥2 pulmonary toxicities using double 10-fold cross-validation for parameter hyper-tuning without leak of information. Balanced accuracy and area under the curve were calculated, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using bootstrap sampling. RESULTS The median age of the patients was 70 years (range, 20-97), and they had predominantly stage IIIA or IIIB disease. They received a median dose of 60 Gy in 2 Gy/fraction, and 46.4% received concurrent chemotherapy. In total, 250 (25.9%) had grade ≥2 pulmonary toxicity. The probability of pulmonary toxicity was 0.08 for patients treated with pencil beam scanning and 0.34 for those treated with other techniques (P = 8.97e-13). Use of abdominal compression and breath hold were highly significant predictors of less toxicity (P = 2.88e-08). Higher total radiation delivered dose (P = .0182) and higher average dose to the ipsilateral lung (P = .0035) increased the likelihood of pulmonary toxicities. The gradient boosting model performed the best of the models tested, and when demographic and dosimetric features were combined, the area under the curve and balanced accuracy were 0.75 ± 0.02 and 0.67 ± 0.02, respectively. After analyzing performance versus the number of data points used for training, we observed that accuracy was limited by the number of observations. CONCLUSIONS In the largest analysis of prospectively enrolled patients with lung cancer assessing pulmonary toxicities from proton therapy to date, advanced machine learning methods revealed that pencil beam scanning, abdominal compression, and lower normal lung doses can lead to significantly lower probability of developing grade ≥2 pneumonitis or dyspnea.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gilmer Valdes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Jessica Scholey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Tomi F Nano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California.
| | - Efstathios D Gennatas
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California
| | - Pranshu Mohindra
- University of Maryland School of Medicine and Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Nasir Mohammed
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois
| | - Jing Zeng
- University of Washington and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Rupesh Kotecha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Lane R Rosen
- Willis-Knighton Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
| | - John Chang
- Oklahoma Proton Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
| | - Henry K Tsai
- New Jersey Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey
| | - James J Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, California Protons Therapy Center, San Diego, California
| | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Proton Center, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Nathan Y Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Proton Center, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Lyle H Ungar
- Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Eric Eaton
- Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kato T, Takemasa K, Ikeda T, Sakagami H, Kato R, Narita Y, Oyama S, Komori S, Yamaguchi H, Murakami M. Analysis of respiratory-induced motion trajectories of individual liver segments in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2024; 25:e14257. [PMID: 38303539 PMCID: PMC11005968 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14257] [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: 05/27/2023] [Revised: 12/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 02/03/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To analyze the respiratory-induced motion trajectories of each liver segment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to derive a more accurate internal margin and optimize treatment protocol selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ten-phase-gated four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) scans of 14 patients with HCC were analyzed. For each patient, eight representative regions of interest (ROI) were delineated on each liver segment in all 10 phases. The coordinates of the center of gravity of each ROI were obtained for each phase, and then the respiratory motion in the left-right (LR), anteroposterior (AP), and craniocaudal (CC) directions was analyzed. Two sets of motion in each direction were also compared in terms of only two extreme phases and all 10 phases. RESULTS Motion of less than 5 mm was detected in 12 (86%) and 10 patients (71%) in the LR and AP directions, respectively, while none in the CC direction. Motion was largest in the CC direction with a maximal value of 19.5 mm, with significant differences between liver segment 7 (S7) and other segments: S1 (p < 0.036), S2 (p < 0.041), S3 (p < 0.016), S4 (p < 0.041), and S5 (p < 0.027). Of the 112 segments, hysteresis >1 mm was observed in 4 (4%), 2 (2%), and 15 (13%) in the LR, AP, and CC directions, respectively, with a maximal value of 5.0 mm in the CC direction. CONCLUSION A significant amount of respiratory motion was detected in the CC direction, especially in S7, and S8. Despite the small effect of hysteresis, it can be observed specifically in the right lobe. Therefore, caution is required when using 4DCT to determine IM using only end-inspiration and end-expiration. Understanding the respiratory motion in individual liver segments can be helpful when selecting an appropriate treatment protocol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takahiro Kato
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
- Department of Radiological SciencesSchool of Health SciencesFukushima Medical UniversityFukushimaJapan
| | - Kimihiro Takemasa
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| | - Tomohiro Ikeda
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| | - Hisanori Sakagami
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| | - Ryohei Kato
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| | - Yuki Narita
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| | - Sho Oyama
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| | - Shinya Komori
- Department of Radiation Physics and TechnologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| | - Hisashi Yamaguchi
- Department of Radiation OncologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
- Department of Minimally Invasive Surgical and Medical OncologyFukushima Medical UniversityFukushimaJapan
| | - Masao Murakami
- Department of Radiation OncologySouthern Tohoku Proton Therapy CenterFukushimaJapan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Belikhin M, Shemyakov A, Chernyaev A, Pryanichnikov A. Dosimetric Evaluation of Target Motion Effects in Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy: A Phantom Study. Int J Part Ther 2024; 11:100013. [PMID: 38757083 PMCID: PMC11095096 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.100013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2023] [Revised: 03/15/2024] [Accepted: 03/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate intrafractional motion effects as a function of peak-to-peak motion and period during single-field, single-fraction and single-field, multifraction irradiation of the moving target in spot-scanning proton therapy. Materials and Methods An in-house dynamic phantom was used to simulate peak-to-peak motion of 5, 10, and 20 mm with periods of 2, 4, and 8 seconds. The dose distribution in the moving target was measured using radiochromic films. During the perpendicular motion, the film was fixed and moved perpendicular to the beam direction without changing the water equivalent thickness (WET). During longitudinal motion, the film was fixed and moved along the beam direction, causing a change in WET. Gamma index analysis was used with criteria of 3%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm to analyze the dose distributions. Results For single-fraction irradiation, varying the period did not result in a significant difference in any of the metrics used (P > .05), except for the local dose within the planning target volume (P < .001). In contrast, varying peak-to-peak motion was significant (P < .001) for all metrics except for the mean planning target volume dose (P ≈ .88) and the local dose (P ≈ .47). The perpendicular motion caused a greater decrease in gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) than WET variations (65% ± 5% vs 85% ± 4%) at 20 mm peak-to-peak motion. Conclusion The implementation of multifraction irradiation allowed to reduce hot and cold spots but did not reduce dose blurring. The motion threshold varied from 7 to 11 mm and depended on the number of fractions, the type of motion, the acceptance criteria, and the calculation method used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikhail Belikhin
- JSC Protom, Protvino, Russian Federation
- Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | | | | | - Alexander Pryanichnikov
- Division of Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
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
|
8
|
Actis O, Mayor A, Meer D, Rechsteiner U, Bolsi A, Lomax AJ, Weber DC. A bi-directional beam-line energy ramping for efficient patient treatment with scanned proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:175001. [PMID: 37506707 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acebb2] [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: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023]
Abstract
Objective.The treatment of mobile tumours using Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) has become more prevalent in the last decade. However, to achieve the same beam delivery quality as for static tumours, treatments have to be combined with motion mitigation techniques, not limited but including, breath hold, gating and re-scanning, which typically prolong treatment time. In this article we present a novel method of bi-directional energy modulation and demonstrate our initial experience in improvement of treatment efficiency. Approach.At Paul Scherrer Institute Gantry 2 mobile tumours are treated by combining PBS with gating and volumetric re-scanning (VR), where the target volume is irradiated multiple times. Initial implementation of VR used only descending beam energies, creating a substantial dead time due to the beam-line initialization (ramping) before each re-scan. In 2019 we commissioned an energy meandering strategy that allows us to avoid beam line ramping in-between energy series while maintaining beam delivery quality.Main results.The measured beam parameters difference for both energy sequence are in the order of the typical daily variations: 0.2 mm in beam position and 0.2 mm in range. Using machine log files, we performed point-to-point dose difference calculations between original and new applications where we observed dose differences of less than 2%. After three years of operation employing bi-directional energy modulation, we have analysed the individual beam delivery time for 181 patients and have compared this to simulations of the timing behaviour assuming uni-directional energy sequence application. Depending on treatment complexity, we obtained plan delivery time reductions of up to 55%, with a median time gain of 17% for all types of treatments.Significance. Bi-directional energy modulation can help improving patient treatment efficiency by reducing delivery times especially for complex and specialised irradiations. It could be implemented in many existing facilities without significant additional hardware upgrades.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oxana Actis
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland
| | - Alexandre Mayor
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland
| | - David Meer
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland
| | - Urs Rechsteiner
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland
| | | | - Antony John Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland
- ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Damien Charles Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland
- University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
- University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Zhang Y, Trnkova P, Toshito T, Heijmen B, Richter C, Aznar M, Albertini F, Bolsi A, Daartz J, Bertholet J, Knopf A. A survey of practice patterns for real-time intrafractional motion-management in particle therapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 26:100439. [PMID: 37124167 PMCID: PMC10133874 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Revised: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 04/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Organ motion compromises accurate particle therapy delivery. This study reports on the practice patterns for real-time intrafractional motion-management in particle therapy to evaluate current clinical practice and wishes and barriers to implementation. Materials and methods An institutional questionnaire was distributed to particle therapy centres worldwide (7/2020-6/2021) asking which type(s) of real-time respiratory motion management (RRMM) methods were used, for which treatment sites, and what were the wishes and barriers to implementation. This was followed by a three-round DELPHI consensus analysis (10/2022) to define recommendations on required actions and future vision. With 70 responses from 17 countries, response rate was 100% for Europe (23/23 centres), 96% for Japan (22/23) and 53% for USA (20/38). Results Of the 68 clinically operational centres, 85% used RRMM, with 41% using both rescanning and active methods. Sixty-four percent used active-RRMM for at least one treatment site, mostly with gating guided by an external marker. Forty-eight percent of active-RRMM users wished to expand or change their RRMM technique. The main barriers were technical limitations and limited resources. From the DELPHI analysis, optimisation of rescanning parameters, improvement of motion models, and pre-treatment 4D evaluation were unanimously considered clinically important future focus. 4D dose calculation was identified as the top requirement for future commercial treatment planning software. Conclusion A majority of particle therapy centres have implemented RRMM. Still, further development and clinical integration were desired by most centres. Joint industry, clinical and research efforts are needed to translate innovation into efficient workflows for broad-scale implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Petra Trnkova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Toshiyuki Toshito
- Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City University West Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Ben Heijmen
- Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus University Medical Center (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Christian Richter
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Marianne Aznar
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
| | | | - Alexandra Bolsi
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Juliane Daartz
- F. Burr Proton Therapy, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Jenny Bertholet
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Antje Knopf
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Institute for Medical Engineering and Medical Informatics, School of Life Science FHNW, Muttenz, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wei S, Lin H, Huang S, Shi C, Xiong W, Zhai H, Hu L, Yu G, Press RH, Hasan S, Chhabra AM, Choi JI, Simone CB, Kang M. Dose rate and dose robustness for proton transmission FLASH-RT treatment in lung cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:970602. [PMID: 36059710 PMCID: PMC9435957 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.970602] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Accepted: 07/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Purposes To evaluate the plan quality and robustness of both dose and dose rate of proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) transmission FLASH delivery in lung cancer treatment. Methods and materials An in-house FLASH planning platform was used to optimize 10 lung cancer patients previously consecutively treated with proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to receive 3 and 5 transmission beams (Trx-3fds and Trx-5fds, respectively) to 34 Gy in a single fraction. Perturbation scenarios (n=12) for setup and range uncertainties (5 mm and 3.5%) were introduced, and dose-volume histogram and dose-rate-volume histogram bands were generated. Conventional proton SBRT clinical plans were used as a reference. RTOG 0915 dose metrics and 40 Gy/s dose rate coverage (V40Gy/s) were used to assess the dose and dose rate robustness. Results Trx-5fds yields a comparable iCTV D2% of 105.3%, whereas Trx-3fds resulted in inferior D2% of 111.9% to the clinical SBRT plans with D2% of 105.6% (p<0.05). Both Trx-5fds and Trx-3fds plans had slightly worse dose metrics to organs at risk than SBRT plans. Trx-5fds achieved superior dosimetry robustness for iCTV, esophagus, and spinal cord doses than both Trx-3fds and conventional SBRT plans. There was no significant difference in dose rate robustness for V40Gy/s coverage between Trx-3fds and Trx-5fds. Dose rate distribution has similar distributions to the dose when perturbation exists. Conclusion Transmission plans yield overall modestly inferior plan quality compared to the conventional proton SBRT plans but provide improved robustness and the potential for a toxicity-sparing FLASH effect. By using more beams (5- versus 3-field), both dose and dose rate robustness for transmission plans can be achieved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shouyi Wei
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Sheng Huang
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Chengyu Shi
- City of Hope, Orange County, Irvine, CA, United States
| | - Weijun Xiong
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Huifang Zhai
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Lei Hu
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Gang Yu
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Minglei Kang
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
- *Correspondence: Minglei Kang,
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wei S, Lin H, Isabelle Choi J, Shi C, Simone CB, Kang M. Advanced pencil beam scanning Bragg peak FLASH-RT delivery technique can enhance lung cancer planning treatment outcomes compared to conventional multiple-energy proton PBS techniques. Radiother Oncol 2022; 175:238-247. [PMID: 35961583 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2022] [Revised: 08/01/2022] [Accepted: 08/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the dosimetric characteristics between an advanced proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) Bragg peak FLASH technique and conventional PBS planning technique in lung tumors. To evaluate the "FLASHness" of single-field in a multiple-field delivery scheme for a hypofractionation regimen and move a step forward to clinical application. METHODS Single-energy PBS Bragg peak FLASH treatment plans were optimized based on a novel Bragg peak tracking technique to enable Bragg peaks to stop at the distal edge of the target. Inverse treatment planning using multiple-field optimization (MFO) can achieve sufficient FLASH dose rate and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT)-equivalent dosimetric quality. The dose rate of organs-at-risk (OARs) and the target were calculated under FLASH machine parameters. A group of 10 consecutive lung SBRT patients was optimized to 34 Gy/fraction using a standard treatment of PBS technique with multiple energy layers as references to the Bragg peak plans. The dosimetric quality was compared between Bragg peak FLASH and conventional plans based on RTOG0915 dose metrics. FLASH dose rate ratios (V40Gy/s) were calculated as a metric of the FLASH-sparing effect. RESULTS For higher dose thresholds, the Bragg peak plans achieved greater V40Gy/s FLASH coverage for all major OARs. The V40Gy/s was close to 100% for all OARs when the dose thresholds were > 5 Gy for full plan and single beam evaluations. The less "FLASHness" region was associated with a low dose distribution, mainly occurring in the PBS field penumbra region. The conventional IMPT treatment plans yielded slightly superior target dose uniformity with a D2%(%) of 108.02% versus that of Bragg peak 300 MU plans of 111.81% (p < 0.01) and that of Bragg peak 1200 MU plans of 115.95% (p < 0.01). No significant difference in dose metrics was found between Bragg peak and IMPT treatment plans for the spinal cord, esophagus, heart, or lung-GTV (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION Hypofractionated lung Bragg peak plans can maintain comparable plan quality to conventional PBS while achieving sufficient FLASH dose rate coverage for major OARs for each field under the multiple-field delivery scheme. The novel Bragg peak FLASH technique has the potential to enhance lung cancer planning treatment outcomes compared to standard PBS treatment techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shouyi Wei
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA.
| | | | - Chengyu Shi
- City of Hope, Orange County, Irvine, CA 92618, USA
| | | | - Minglei Kang
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Wei S, Lin H, Shi C, Xiong W, Chen CC, Huang S, Press RH, Hasan S, Chhabra AM, Choi JI, Simone CB, Kang M. Use of single-energy proton pencil beam scanning Bragg peak for intensity-modulated proton therapy FLASH treatment planning in liver hypofractionated radiation therapy. Med Phys 2022; 49:6560-6574. [PMID: 35929404 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15894] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 07/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The transmission proton FLASH technique delivers high doses to the normal tissue distal to the target, which is less conformal compared to the Bragg peak technique. To investigate FLASH RT planning using single-energy Bragg peak beams with a similar beam arrangement as clinical intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and to characterize the plan quality, dose sparing of organs-at-risk (OARs), and FLASH dose rate percentage. MATERIALS AND METHODS An in-house platform was developed to enable inverse IMPT-FLASH planning using single-energy Bragg peaks. A universal range shifter and range compensators were utilized to effectively align the Bragg peak to the distal edge of the target. Two different minimum MU settings of 400 and 800 MU/spot (Bragg-400MU and Bragg-800MU) plans were investigated on 10 consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma patients previously treated by IMPT-SBRT to evaluate the FLASH dose and dose rate coverage for OARs. The IMPT-FLASH using single-energy Bragg peaks delivered 50 Gy in 5 fractions with similar or identical beam arrangement to the clinical IMPT-SBRT plans. NRG GI003 dose constraint metrics were used. Three dose rate calculation methods, including average dose rate (ADR), dose threshold dose rate (DTDR), and dose-averaged dose rate (DADR), were all studied. RESULTS The novel spot map optimization can fulfill the inverse planning using single-energy Bragg peaks. All the Bragg peak FLASH plans achieved similar results for the liver-GTV Dmean and heart D0.5cc , compared to SBRT-IMPT. The Bragg-800MU plans resulted in 18.3% higher CTV D2cc compared with SBRT (p < 0.05), and no significant difference was found between Bragg-400MU and SBRT plans. For the CTV Dmax , SBRT plans resulted in 10.3% (p<0.01) less than Bragg-400MU plans and 16.6% (p<0.01) less than Bragg-800MU plans. The Bragg-800MU plans generally achieved higher ADR, DADR, and DTDR dose rates than Bragg-400MU plans, and DADR mostly led to the highest V40Gy/s compared to other dose rate calculation methods, whereas ADR led to the lowest. The lower dose rate portions in certain OARs are related to the lower dose deposited due to the farther distances from targets, especially in the penumbra of the beams. CONCLUSION Single-energy Bragg peak IMPT-FLASH plans eliminate the exit dose in normal tissues, maintaining comparable dose metrics to the conventional IMPT-SBRT plans while achieving a sufficient FLASH dose rate for liver cancers. This study demonstrates the feasibility of and sufficiently high dose rate when applying Bragg peak FLASH treatment for liver cancer hypofractionated FLASH therapy. The advancement of this novel method has the potential to optimize treatment for liver cancer patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shouyi Wei
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Algranati C, Strigari L. Imaging Strategies in Proton Therapy for Thoracic Tumors: A Mini Review. Front Oncol 2022; 12:833364. [PMID: 35515119 PMCID: PMC9063639 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.833364] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2021] [Accepted: 02/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton beam therapy (PBT) is often more attractive for its high gradient dose distributions than other treatment modalities with external photon beams. However, in thoracic lesions treated particularly with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton beams, several dosimetric issues are addressed. The PBS approach may lead to large hot or cold spots in dose distributions delivered to the patients, potentially affecting the tumor control and/or increasing normal tissue side effects. This delivery method particularly benefits image-guided approaches. Our paper aims at reviewing imaging strategies and their technological trends for PBT in thoracic lesions. The focus is on the use of imaging strategies in simulation, planning, positioning, adaptation, monitoring, and delivery of treatment and how changes in the anatomy of thoracic tumors are handled with the available tools and devices in PBT. Starting from bibliographic research over the past 5 years, retrieving 174 papers, major key questions, and implemented solutions were identified and discussed; the results aggregated and presented following the methodology of analysis of expert interviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlo Algranati
- Proton Therapy Department, Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS), Trento, Italy
- Dipartimento di Medicina Specialistica, Diagnostica e Sperimentale (DIMES), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Lidia Strigari
- Department of Medical Physics, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- *Correspondence: Lidia Strigari,
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Knopf AC, Czerska K, Fracchiolla F, Graeff C, Molinelli S, Rinaldi I, Rucincki A, Sterpin E, Stützer K, Trnkova P, Zhang Y, Chang JY, Giap H, Liu W, Schild SE, Simone CB, Lomax AJ, Meijers A. Clinical necessity of multi-image based (4DMIB) optimization for targets affected by respiratory motion and treated with scanned particle therapy – a comprehensive review. Radiother Oncol 2022; 169:77-85. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2021] [Revised: 01/31/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
15
|
A Universal Range Shifter and Range Compensator Can Enable Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Single-Energy Bragg Peak FLASH-RT Treatment Using Current Commercially Available Proton Systems. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:203-213. [PMID: 35101597 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2021] [Revised: 11/30/2021] [Accepted: 01/07/2022] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Transmission beams have been proposed for ultra-high dose (or FLASH) proton planning, limiting the organ sparing potentials of proton therapy. By pulling back the ranges of the highest energy proton beams and compensating proton ranges to adapt to the target distally, the exit dose of proton beams can be eliminated to better protect organs at risk while still preserving FLASH dose rate delivery. METHOD AND MATERIALS An inverse planning tool was developed to optimize intensity modulated proton therapy using a single-energy layer for FLASH radiation therapy planning. The range pull-backs were calculated to stop single-energy proton beams at the distal edge of the target. The spot map and weights of each field were optimized to achieve a sufficient dose rate using proton beam Bragg peaks. A C-shape target in phantom, along with 6 consecutive lung cancer patients previously treated using proton stereotactic body radiation therapy were planned using this novel Bragg Peak method and also transmission technique. Dosimetry characteristics and 3-dimensional dose rate were investigated. RESULTS The minimum monitor units (MU) for transmission and Bragg peak plans were 400 MU/spot and 1200 MU/spot, respectively, corresponding to spot peak dose rates of 670 GyRBE (relative biological effectiveness) per second and 1950 GyRBE per second. Bragg peak plans yield a generally comparable target uniformity while significantly reducing dose spillage volume from the low to medium dose level. For all the 6 lung cases delivery of 34 GyRBE in 1 fraction, assessing Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0915 constraints, the lung V7GyRBE volume was reduced by up to 32% (P = .001) for Bragg peak plans. The transmission plans tended to generate 2.4% higher FLASH dose rate coverage (V40GyRBE/s) versus Bragg peak plans over the major organs at risk. However, Bragg peak plans could also reach the FLASH radiation therapy threshold of V40GyRBE/s using a higher MU/spot and sophisticated dose-rate optimization algorithm. CONCLUSIONS This first proof-of-concept study has demonstrated this novel method of combining range pull-back and powerful inverse optimization capable of achieving FLASH dose rate based on currently available machine parameters using a single-energy Bragg peak. Similar target coverage and uniformity can be maintained by Bragg peak FLASH plans while substantially improving the sparing of organs at risk compared with transmission plans.
Collapse
|
16
|
Li H, Dong L, Bert C, Chang J, Flampouri S, Jee KW, Lin L, Moyers M, Mori S, Rottmann J, Tryggestad E, Vedam S. Report of AAPM Task Group 290: Respiratory motion management for particle therapy. Med Phys 2022; 49:e50-e81. [PMID: 35066871 PMCID: PMC9306777 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2021] [Revised: 12/28/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Dose uncertainty induced by respiratory motion remains a major concern for treating thoracic and abdominal lesions using particle beams. This Task Group report reviews the impact of tumor motion and dosimetric considerations in particle radiotherapy, current motion‐management techniques, and limitations for different particle‐beam delivery modes (i.e., passive scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil‐beam scanning). Furthermore, the report provides guidance and risk analysis for quality assurance of the motion‐management procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy, and discusses future development and emerging motion‐management strategies. This report supplements previously published AAPM report TG76, and considers aspects of motion management that are crucial to the accurate and safe delivery of particle‐beam therapy. To that end, this report produces general recommendations for commissioning and facility‐specific dosimetric characterization, motion assessment, treatment planning, active and passive motion‐management techniques, image guidance and related decision‐making, monitoring throughout therapy, and recommendations for vendors. Key among these recommendations are that: (1) facilities should perform thorough planning studies (using retrospective data) and develop standard operating procedures that address all aspects of therapy for any treatment site involving respiratory motion; (2) a risk‐based methodology should be adopted for quality management and ongoing process improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Christoph Bert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Joe Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Kyung-Wook Jee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Liyong Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Michael Moyers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Shinichiro Mori
- Research Center for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba, Japan
| | - Joerg Rottmann
- Center for Proton Therapy, Proton Therapy Singapore, Proton Therapy Pte Ltd, Singapore
| | - Erik Tryggestad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sastry Vedam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Wei S, Lin H, Choi JI, Press RH, Lazarev S, Kabarriti R, Hajj C, Hasan S, Chhabra AM, Simone CB, Kang M. FLASH Radiotherapy Using Single-Energy Proton PBS Transmission Beams for Hypofractionation Liver Cancer: Dose and Dose Rate Quantification. Front Oncol 2022; 11:813063. [PMID: 35096620 PMCID: PMC8794777 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.813063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This work aims to study the dose and ultra-high-dose rate characteristics of transmission proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) FLASH radiotherapy (RT) for hypofractionation liver cancer based on the parameters of a commercially available proton system operating under FLASH mode. METHODS AND MATERIALS An in-house treatment planning software (TPS) was developed to perform intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) FLASH-RT planning. Single-energy transmission proton PBS plans of 4.5 Gy × 15 fractions were optimized for seven consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma patients, using 2 and 5 fields combined with 1) the minimum MU/spot chosen between 100 and 400, and minimum spot time (MST) of 2 ms, and 2) the minimum MU/spot of 100, and MST of 0.5 ms, based upon considerations in target uniformities, OAR dose constraints, and OAR FLASH dose rate coverage. Then, the 3D average dose rate distribution was calculated. The dose metrics for the mean dose of Liver-GTV and other major OARs were characterized to evaluate the dose quality for the different combinations of field numbers and minimum spot times compared to that of conventional IMPT plans. Dose rate quality was evaluated using 40 Gy/s volume coverage (V40Gy/s). RESULTS All plans achieved favorable and comparable target uniformities, and target uniformity improved as the number of fields increased. For OARs, no significant dose differences were observed between plans of different field numbers and the same MST. For plans using shorter MST and the same field numbers, better sparing was generally observed in most OARs and was statistically significant for the chest wall. However, the FLASH dose rate coverage V40Gy/s was increased by 20% for 2-field plans compared to 5-field plans in most OARs with 2-ms MST, which was less evident in the 0.5-ms cases. For 2-field plans, dose metrics and V40Gy/s of select OARs have large variations due to the beam angle selection and variable distances to the targets. The transmission plans generally yielded inferior dosimetric quality to the conventional IMPT plans. CONCLUSION This is the first attempt to assess liver FLASH treatment planning and demonstrates that it is challenging for hypofractionation with smaller fractional doses (4.5 Gy/fraction). Using fewer fields can allow higher minimum MU/spot, resulting in higher OAR FLASH dose rate coverages while achieving similar plan quality compared to plans with more fields. Shorter MST can result in better plan quality and comparable or even better FLASH dose rate coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shouyi Wei
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Haibo Lin
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| | | | | | | | | | - Carla Hajj
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States
| | | | | | | | - Minglei Kang
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY, United States
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Taunk NK, Burgdorf B, Dong L, Ben-Josef E. Simultaneous Multiple Liver Metastasis Treated with Pencil Beam Proton Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT). Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:89-94. [PMID: 34722815 PMCID: PMC8489493 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00085.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2020] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Compared with photon stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans that may have to use many more penetrating x-ray beams for each isocenter, proton SBRT with ultrahypofractionated doses use fewer beam angles and offer significantly reduced low-dose radiation bath to normal liver tissue. We demonstrate techniques to deliver safe and effective proton SBRT, where planning and organ motion complexity further increased with multiple liver lesions. For treatment planning, we recommend robust and logical beam angles, avoiding devices and encouraging entry perpendicular to the dominant motion, as well as volumetric repainting to mitigate the interplay effect to clinically acceptable levels. This report highlights the significant technical challenges with ultrahypofractionated proton pencil beam scanning liver therapy, how they are managed, and the effectiveness of this treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil K Taunk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Brendan Burgdorf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Edgar Ben-Josef
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Quantitative Assessment of 3D Dose Rate for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning FLASH Radiotherapy and Its Application for Lung Hypofractionation Treatment Planning. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13143549. [PMID: 34298762 PMCID: PMC8303986 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13143549] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2021] [Revised: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 07/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
To quantitatively assess target and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose rate based on three proposed proton PBS dose rate metrics and study FLASH intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning using transmission beams. An in-house FLASH planning platform was developed to optimize transmission (shoot-through) plans for nine consecutive lung cancer patients previously planned with proton SBRT. Dose and dose rate calculation codes were developed to quantify three types of dose rate calculation methods (dose-averaged dose rate (DADR), average dose rate (ADR), and dose-threshold dose rate (DTDR)) based on both phantom and patient treatment plans. Two different minimum MU/spot settings were used to optimize two different dose regimes, 34-Gy in one fraction and 45-Gy in three fractions. The OAR sparing and target coverage can be optimized with good uniformity (hotspot < 110% of prescription dose). ADR, accounting for the spot dwelling and scanning time, gives the lowest dose rate; DTDR, not considering this time but a dose-threshold, gives an intermediate dose rate, whereas DADR gives the highest dose rate without considering any time or dose-threshold. All three dose rates attenuate along the beam direction, and the highest dose rate regions often occur on the field edge for ADR and DTDR, whereas DADR has a better dose rate uniformity. The differences in dose rate metrics have led a large variation for OARs dose rate assessment, posing challenges to FLASH clinical implementation. This is the first attempt to study the impact of the dose rate models, and more investigations and evidence for the details of proton PBS FLASH parameters are needed to explore the correlation between FLASH efficacy and the dose rate metrics.
Collapse
|
20
|
Younkin JE, Morales DH, Shen J, Ding X, Stoker JB, Yu NY, Sio TT, Daniels TB, Bues M, Fatyga M, Schild SE, Liu W. Technical Note: Multiple energy extraction techniques for synchrotron-based proton delivery systems may exacerbate motion interplay effects in lung cancer treatments. Med Phys 2021; 48:4812-4823. [PMID: 34174087 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2020] [Revised: 03/12/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The multiple energy extraction (MEE) delivery technique for synchrotron-based proton delivery systems reduces beam delivery time by decelerating the beam multiple times during one accelerator spill, but this might cause additional plan quality degradation due to intrafractional motion. We seek to determine whether MEE causes significantly different plan quality degradation compared to single energy extraction (SEE) for lung cancer treatments due to the interplay effect. METHODS Ten lung cancer patients treated with IMPT at our institution were nonrandomly sampled based on a representative range of tumor motion amplitudes, tumor volumes, and respiratory periods. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) indices from single-fraction SEE and MEE four-dimensional (4D) dynamic dose distributions were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Distributions of monitor units (MU) to breathing phases were investigated for features associated with plan quality degradation. SEE and MEE DVH indices were compared in fractionated deliveries of the worst-case patient treatment scenario to evaluate the impact of fractionation. RESULTS There were no clinically significant differences in target mean dose, target dose conformity, or dose to organs-at-risk between SEE and MEE in single-fraction delivery. Three patients had significantly worse dose homogeneity with MEE compared to SEE (single-fraction mean D5% -D95% increased by up to 9.6% of prescription dose), and plots of MU distribution to breathing phases showed synchronization patterns with MEE but not SEE. However, after 30 fractions the patient in the worst-case scenario had clinically acceptable target dose homogeneity and coverage with MEE (mean D5% -D95% increased by 1% compared to SEE). CONCLUSIONS For some patients with breathing periods close to the mean spill duration, MEE resulted in significantly worse single-fraction target dose homogeneity compared to SEE due to the interplay effect. However, this was mitigated by fractionation, and target dose homogeneity and coverage were clinically acceptable after 30 fractions with MEE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James E Younkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | | | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Xiaoning Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Joshua B Stoker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Nathan Y Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Terence T Sio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Thomas B Daniels
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Mirek Fatyga
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Steven E Schild
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wong SL, Alshaikhi J, Grimes H, Amos RA, Poynter A, Rompokos V, Gulliford S, Royle G, Liao Z, Sharma RA, Mendes R. Retrospective Planning Study of Patients with Superior Sulcus Tumours Comparing Pencil Beam Scanning Protons to Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:e118-e131. [PMID: 32798157 PMCID: PMC7883303 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.07.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2020] [Revised: 05/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Twenty per cent of patients with non-small cell lung cancer present with stage III locally advanced disease. Precision radiotherapy with pencil beam scanning (PBS) protons may improve outcomes. However, stage III is a heterogeneous group and accounting for complex tumour motion is challenging. As yet, it remains unclear as to whom will benefit. In our retrospective planning study, we explored if patients with superior sulcus tumours (SSTs) are a select cohort who might benefit from this treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with SSTs treated with radical radiotherapy using four-dimensional planning computed tomography between 2010 and 2015 were identified. Tumour motion was assessed and excluded if greater than 5 mm. Photon volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and PBS proton single-field optimisation plans, with and without inhomogeneity corrections, were generated retrospectively. Robustness analysis was assessed for VMAT and PBS plans involving: (i) 5 mm geometric uncertainty, with an additional 3.5% range uncertainty for proton plans; (ii) verification plans at maximal inhalation and exhalation. Comparative dosimetric and robustness analyses were carried out. RESULTS Ten patients were suitable. The mean clinical target volume D95 was 98.1% ± 0.4 (97.5-98.8) and 98.4% ± 0.2 (98.1-98.9) for PBS and VMAT plans, respectively. All normal tissue tolerances were achieved. The same four PBS and VMAT plans failed robustness assessment. Inhomogeneity corrections minimally impacted proton plan robustness and made it worse in one case. The most important factor affecting target coverage and robustness was the clinical target volume entering the spinal canal. Proton plans significantly reduced the mean lung dose (by 21.9%), lung V5, V10, V20 (by 47.9%, 36.4%, 12.1%, respectively), mean heart dose (by 21.4%) and thoracic vertebra dose (by 29.2%) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In this planning study, robust PBS plans were achievable in carefully selected patients. Considerable dose reductions to the lung, heart and thoracic vertebra were possible without compromising target coverage. Sparing these lymphopenia-related organs may be particularly important in this era of immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S-L Wong
- University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| | - J Alshaikhi
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Saudi Particle Therapy Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - H Grimes
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - R A Amos
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - A Poynter
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - V Rompokos
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - S Gulliford
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - G Royle
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Z Liao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - R A Sharma
- University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - R Mendes
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Patel NV, Yu NY, Koroulakis A, Diwanji T, Sawant A, Sio TT, Mohindra P. Proton therapy for thoracic malignancies: a review of oncologic outcomes. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2021; 21:177-191. [PMID: 33118427 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2021.1844567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Radiotherapy is an integral component in the treatment of the majority of thoracic malignancies. By taking advantage of the steep dose fall-off characteristic of protons combined with modern optimization and delivery techniques, proton beam therapy (PBT) has emerged as a potential tool to improve oncologic outcomes while reducing toxicities from treatment.Areas covered: We review the physical properties and treatment techniques that form the basis of PBT as applicable for thoracic malignancies, including a brief discussion on the recent advances that show promise to enhance treatment planning and delivery. The dosimetric advantages and clinical outcomes of PBT are critically reviewed for each of the major thoracic malignancies, including lung cancer, esophageal cancer, mesothelioma, thymic cancer, and primary mediastinal lymphoma.Expert opinion: Despite clear dosimetric benefits with PBT in thoracic radiotherapy, the improvement in clinical outcomes remains to be seen. Nevertheless, with the incorporation of newer techniques, PBT remains a promising modality and ongoing randomized studies will clarify its role to determine which patients with thoracic malignancies receive the most benefit. Re-irradiation, advanced disease requiring high cardio-pulmonary irradiation volume and younger patients will likely derive maximum benefit with modern PBT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nirav V Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Nathan Y Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Antony Koroulakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine and Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Tejan Diwanji
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami, FL, USA
| | - Amit Sawant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine and Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Terence T Sio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Pranshu Mohindra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine and Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Lazarev S, Rosenzweig K, Samstein R, Salgado LR, Hasan S, Press RH, Sharma S, Powell CA, Hirsch FR, Simone CB. Where are we with proton beam therapy for thoracic malignancies? Current status and future perspectives. Lung Cancer 2020; 152:157-164. [PMID: 33421922 DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.12.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2020] [Revised: 12/12/2020] [Accepted: 12/19/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) plays an important role in the curative treatment of a variety of thoracic malignancies. However, delivery of tumoricidal doses with conventional photon-based RT to thoracic tumors often presents unique challenges. Extraneous dose deposited along the entrance and exit paths of the photon beam increases the likelihood of significant acute and delayed toxicities in cardiac, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal structures. Furthermore, safe dose-escalation, delivery of concomitant systemic therapy, or reirradiation of a recurrent disease are frequently not feasible with photon RT. In contrast, protons have distinct physical properties that allow them to deposit a high irradiation dose in the target, while leaving a negligible exit dose in the adjacent organs at risk. Proton beam therapy (PBT), therefore, can reduce toxicities with similar antitumor effect or allow for dose escalation and enhanced antitumor effect with the same or even lower risk of adverse events, thus potentially improving the therapeutic ratio of the treatment. For thoracic malignancies, this favorable dose distribution can translate to decreases in treatment-related morbidities, provide more durable disease control, and potentially prolong survival. This review examines the evolving role of PBT in the treatment of thoracic malignancies and evaluates the data supporting its use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stanislav Lazarev
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Kenneth Rosenzweig
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | - Robert Samstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | - Lucas Resende Salgado
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | | | | | - Sonam Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | - Charles A Powell
- Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | - Fred R Hirsch
- Center for Thoracic Oncology, The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Chang S, Liu G, Zhao L, Dilworth JT, Zheng W, Jawad S, Yan D, Chen P, Stevens C, Kabolizadeh P, Li X, Ding X. Feasibility study: spot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPArc) for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:232. [PMID: 33028378 PMCID: PMC7542109 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01676-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 09/24/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study investigated the feasibility and potential clinical benefit of utilizing a new proton treatment technique: Spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) to further reduce radiation dose to healthy tissue and mitigate the probability of normal tissue complications compared to conventional intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS Eight patients diagnosed with left-sided breast cancer and treated with breast-preserving surgery followed by whole breast irradiation without regional nodal irradiation were included in this retrospective planning. Two proton treatment plans were generated for each patient: vertical intensity-modulated proton therapy used for clinical treatment (vIMPT, gantry angle 10°-30°) and SPArc for comparison purpose. Both SPArc and vIMPT plans were optimized using the robust optimization of ± 3.5% range and 5 mm setup uncertainties. Root-mean-square deviation dose (RMSD) volume histograms were used for plan robustness evaluation. All dosimetric results were evaluated based on dose-volume histograms (DVH), and the interplay effect was evaluated based on the accumulation of single-fraction 4D dynamic dose on CT50. The treatment beam delivery time was simulated based on a gantry rotation with energy-layer-switching-time (ELST) from 0.2 to 5 s. RESULTS The average D1 to the heart and LAD were reduced to 53.63 cGy and 82.25 cGy compared with vIMPT 110.38 cGy (p = 0.001) and 170.38 cGy (p = 0.001), respectively. The average V5Gy and V20Gy of ipsilateral lung was reduced to 16.77% and 3.07% compared to vIMPT 25.56% (p = 0.001) and 4.68% (p = 0.003). Skin3mm mean and maximum dose were reduced to 3999.38 cGy and 4395.63 cGy compared to vIMPT 4104.25 cGy (p = 0.039) and 4411.63 cGy (p = 0.043), respectively. A significant relative risk reduction (RNTCP = NTCPSPArc/NTCPvIMPT) for organs at risk (OARs) was obtained with SPArc ranging from 0.61 to 0.86 depending on the clinical endpoint. The RMSD volume histogram (RVH) analysis shows SPArc provided better plan robustness in OARs sparing, including the heart, LAD, ipsilateral lung, and skin. The average estimated treatment beam delivery times were comparable to vIMPT plans when the ELST is about 0.5 s. CONCLUSION SPArc technique can further reduce dose delivered to OARs and the probability of normal tissue complications in patients treated for left-sided WBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheng Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Renmin Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei Province, China.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Gang Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA.,Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong, University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430023, China.,School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, Hubei, China
| | - Lewei Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Joshua T Dilworth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Weili Zheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Saada Jawad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Di Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Peter Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Craig Stevens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Peyman Kabolizadeh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Xiaoqiang Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, 48074, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
den Otter LA, Anakotta RM, Weessies M, Roos CTG, Sijtsema NM, Muijs CT, Dieters M, Wijsman R, Troost EGC, Richter C, Meijers A, Langendijk JA, Both S, Knopf AC. Investigation of inter-fraction target motion variations in the context of pencil beam scanned proton therapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Med Phys 2020; 47:3835-3844. [PMID: 32573792 PMCID: PMC7586844 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14345] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2020] [Revised: 05/01/2020] [Accepted: 06/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose For locally advanced‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), inter‐fraction target motion variations during the whole time span of a fractionated treatment course are assessed in a large and representative patient cohort. The primary objective is to develop a suitable motion monitoring strategy for pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS‐PT) treatments of NSCLC patients during free breathing. Methods Weekly 4D computed tomography (4DCT; 41 patients) and daily 4D cone beam computed tomography (4DCBCT; 10 of 41 patients) scans were analyzed for a fully fractionated treatment course. Gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were contoured and the 3D displacement vectors of the centroid positions were compared for all scans. Furthermore, motion amplitude variations in different lung segments were statistically analyzed. The dosimetric impact of target motion variations and target motion assessment was investigated in exemplary patient cases. Results The median observed centroid motion was 3.4 mm (range: 0.2–12.4 mm) with an average variation of 2.2 mm (range: 0.1–8.8 mm). Ten of 32 patients (31.3%) with an initial motion <5 mm increased beyond a 5‐mm motion amplitude during the treatment course. Motion observed in the 4DCBCT scans deviated on average 1.5 mm (range: 0.0–6.0 mm) from the motion observed in the 4DCTs. Larger motion variations for one example patient compromised treatment plan robustness while no dosimetric influence was seen due to motion assessment biases in another example case. Conclusions Target motion variations were investigated during the course of radiotherapy for NSCLC patients. Patients with initial GTV motion amplitudes of < 2 mm can be assumed to be stable in motion during the treatment course. For treatments of NSCLC patients who exhibit motion amplitudes of > 2 mm, 4DCBCT should be considered for motion monitoring due to substantial motion variations observed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lydia A den Otter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Renske M Anakotta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Menkedina Weessies
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Catharina T G Roos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Nanna M Sijtsema
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Christina T Muijs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Margriet Dieters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Robin Wijsman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden, Rossendorf, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology, OncoRay, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christian Richter
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden, Rossendorf, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology, OncoRay, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Arturs Meijers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Antje-Christin Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Kang M, Pang D. Commissioning and beam characterization of the first gantry-mounted accelerator pencil beam scanning proton system. Med Phys 2020; 47:3496-3510. [PMID: 31840264 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13972] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2019] [Revised: 10/29/2019] [Accepted: 12/05/2019] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To present and discuss beam characteristics and commissioning process of the first gantry-mounted accelerator single room pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton system. METHODS The Mevion HYPERSCAN employs a design configuration with a synchrocyclotron mounted on the gantry to eliminate the traditional beamline and a nozzle that contains the dosimetry monitoring chambers, the energy modulator (Energy Selector (ES)), and an Adaptive Aperture (AA). To characterize the beam, we measured the integrated depth dose (IDDs) for 12 energies, from highest energy of 227 MeV down to 28 MeV with a range difference ~ 2 cm between the adjacent energies, using a large radius Bragg peak chamber; single-spot profiles in air at five locations along the beam central axis using radiochromic EBT3 film and cross compared with a scintillation detector; and determined the output using a densely packed spot map. To access the performance of AA, we measured interleaf leakage and the penumbra reduction effect. Monte Carlo simulation using TOPAS was performed to study spot size variation along the beam path, beam divergence, and energy spectrum. RESULTS This proton system is calibrated to deliver 1 Gy dose at 5 cm depth in water using the highest beam energy by delivering 1 MU/spot to a 10 × 10 cm2 map with a 2.5 mm spot spacing. The spot size in air varies from 4 mm to 26 mm from 227 MeV to 28 MeV at the isocenter plane with the nozzle retracted 23.6 cm from isocenter. The beam divergence of 28 MeV beam is ~ 52.7 mrad, which is nearly 22 times that of 227 MeV proton beam. The binary design of the ES has resulted in shifts of the effective SSD toward the isocenter as the energy is modulated lower. The peaks of IDD curves have a constant 80%-80% width of 8.4 mm at all energies. The interleaf leakage of the AA is less than 1.5% at the highest energy; and the AA can reduce the penumbra by 2 mm to 13 mm for the 227 and 28 MeV energies at isocenter plane in air. CONCLUSIONS The unique design of the HYPERSCAN proton system has yielded beam characteristics significantly different from that of other proton systems in terms of the Bragg peak shapes, spot sizes, and the penumbra sharpening effect of the AA. The combination of the ES and AA has made PBS implementation possible without using beam transport line and range shifter devices. Different considerations may be required in treatment planning optimization to account for different design and beam characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Kang
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - D Pang
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Simone CB, Plastaras JP, Jabbour SK, Lee A, Lee NY, Choi JI, Frank SJ, Chang JY, Bradley J. Proton Reirradiation: Expert Recommendations for Reducing Toxicities and Offering New Chances of Cure in Patients With Challenging Recurrence Malignancies. Semin Radiat Oncol 2020; 30:253-261. [PMID: 32503791 PMCID: PMC10870390 DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2020.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Local and regional recurrences are common following an initial course of radiotherapy, yet management of these recurrences remains a challenge. Reirradiation may be an optimal treatment approach for providing durable tumor control and even offering select patients with locoregional recurrences or new primary tumors a chance of cure, but photon reirradiation can be associated with considerable risks of high grade acute and late toxicities. The high conformality and lack of exit dose with proton therapy offer significant advantages for reirradiation. By decreasing dose to adjacent normal tissues, proton therapy can more safely deliver definitive instead of palliative doses of reirradiation, more safely dose escalate reirradiation treatment, and more safely allow for concurrent systemic therapy in the reirradiation setting. In this case-based analysis, renowned experts in the fields of proton therapy and of reirradiation present cases for which they recently employed proton reirradiation. This manuscript focuses on case studies in patients with lung cancer, head and neck malignancies, and pelvic malignancies. Considerations for when to deliver proton therapy in the reirradiation setting and the pros and cons of proton therapy are discussed, and the existing literature supporting the use of proton reirradiation for these disease sites is assessed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
| | - John P Plastaras
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Salma K Jabbour
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
| | - Anna Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Joe Y Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jeffrey Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Comparison of clinical outcomes between passive scattering versus pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2020; 146:187-193. [PMID: 32179362 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.02.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2019] [Revised: 01/22/2020] [Accepted: 02/24/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Our study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes and toxicities between passive scattering (PS) proton beam therapy (PBT) and pencil-beam scanning (PBS) PBT for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS The multidisciplinary team for liver cancer identified the PBT candidates who were ineligible for resection or radiofrequency ablation. We retrospectively analyzed 172 patients who received PBT for primary HCC from January 2016 to December 2017. The PS with wobbling method was applied with both breath-hold and regular breathing techniques, while the PBS method was utilized only for regular breathing techniques covering the full amplitude of respiration. To maintain the balance of the variables between the PS and PBS groups, we performed propensity score matching. RESULTS The median follow-up duration for the total cohort was 14 months (range, 1-31 months). After propensity score matching, a total of 103 patients (70 in the PS group and 33 in the PBS group) were included in analysis. There were no significant differences in the rates of overall survival (OS), in-field local control (IFLC), out-field intrahepatic control (OFIHC), extrahepatic progression-free survival (EHPFS), and complete response (CR) between the matched groups. In the subgroup analyses, no subgroup showed a significant difference in IFLC between the PS and PBS groups. There was also no significant difference in the toxicity profiles between the groups. CONCLUSION There are no differences in oncologic outcomes, including OS, IFLC, OFIHC, EHPFS, and CR rates, or in the toxicity profiles between PS and PBS PBT for primary HCC.
Collapse
|
29
|
Johnson JE, Herman MG, Kruse JJ. Optimization of motion management parameters in a synchrotron-based spot scanning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:69-77. [PMID: 31538720 PMCID: PMC6753740 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12702] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2019] [Revised: 04/12/2019] [Accepted: 07/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To quantify the effects of combining layer-based repainting and respiratory gating as a strategy to mitigate the dosimetric degradation caused by the interplay effect between a moving target and dynamic spot-scanning proton delivery. METHODS An analytic routine modeled three-dimensional dose distributions of pencil-beam proton plans delivered to a moving target. Spot positions and weights were established for a single field to deliver 100 cGy to a static, 15-cm deep, 3-cm radius spherical clinical target volume with a 1-cm isotropic internal target volume expansion. The interplay effect was studied by modeling proton delivery from a clinical synchrotron-based spot scanning system and respiratory target motion, patterned from surrogate patient breathing traces. Motion both parallel and orthogonal to the beam scanning direction was investigated. Repainting was modeled using a layer-based technique. For each of 13 patient breathing traces, the dose from 20 distinct delivery schemes (combinations of four gate window amplitudes and five repainting techniques) was computed. Delivery strategies were inter-compared based on target coverage, dose homogeneity, high dose spillage, and delivery time. RESULTS Notable degradation and variability in plan quality were observed for ungated delivery. Decreasing the gate window reduced this variability and improved plan quality at the expense of longer delivery times. Dose deviations were substantially greater for motion orthogonal to the scan direction when compared with parallel motion. Repainting coupled with gating was effective at partially restoring dosimetric coverage at only a fraction of the delivery time increase associated with very small gate windows alone. Trends for orthogonal motion were similar, but more complicated, due to the increased severity of the interplay. CONCLUSIONS Layer-based repainting helps suppress the interplay effect from intra-gate motion, with only a modest penalty in delivery time. The magnitude of the improvement in target coverage is strongly influenced by individual patient breathing patterns and the tumor motion trajectory.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jedediah E Johnson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Michael G Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Jon J Kruse
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Badiyan SN, Rutenberg MS, Hoppe BS, Mohindra P, Larson G, Hartsell WF, Tsai H, Zeng J, Rengan R, Glass E, Katz S, Vargas C, Feigenberg SJ, Simone CB. Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Recurrent Lung Cancer Reirradiated With Proton Therapy on the Proton Collaborative Group and University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute Prospective Registry Studies. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 9:280-288. [PMID: 30802618 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2018] [Revised: 02/07/2019] [Accepted: 02/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We sought to assess clinical outcomes and toxicities of patients with recurrent lung cancer reirradiated with proton beam therapy (PBT) who were enrolled in 2 prospective registry trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS Seventy-nine consecutive patients were reirradiated with PBT at 8 institutions. Conventionally fractionated radiation therapy was used to treat the previous lung cancer in 68% of patients (median equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions [EQD2], 60.2 Gy) and hypofractionated/stereotactic body radiation therapy in 32% (median EQD2, 83.3 Gy). Nine patients (11%) received ≥2 courses of thoracic irradiation before PBT. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 2 to 3 in 13%. Median time from prior radiation therapy to PBT was 19.9 months. PBT was delivered with conventional fractionation in 58% (median EQD2, 60 Gy), hyperfractionation in 3% (median EQD2, 62.7 Gy), and hypofractionation in 39% (median EQD2, 60.4 Gy). Twenty-four patients (30%) received chemotherapy concurrently with PBT. RESULTS All patients completed PBT as planned. At a median follow-up of 10.7 months after PBT, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 15.2 months and 10.5 months, respectively. Acute and late grade 3 toxicities occurred in 6% and 1%, respectively. Three patients died after PBT from possible radiation toxicity. On multivariate analysis, ECOG performance status ≤1 was associated with OS (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.80; P = .014) and PFS (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.73; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS This is the largest series to date of PBT reirradiation for recurrent lung cancer and indicates that reirradiation with PBT is well tolerated with acceptable toxicity and encouraging efficacy. ECOG performance status was associated with OS and PFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shahed N Badiyan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | | | - Bradford S Hoppe
- University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Pranshu Mohindra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Gary Larson
- Oklahoma Procure Proton Therapy Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
| | | | - Henry Tsai
- New Jersey Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey
| | - Jing Zeng
- University of Washington and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Ramesh Rengan
- University of Washington and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Erica Glass
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Sanford Katz
- Willis-Knighton Proton Therapy Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
| | - Carlos Vargas
- Mayo Clinic Arizona Proton Therapy Program, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Steven J Feigenberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Pepin MD, Tryggestad E, Wan Chan Tseung HS, Johnson JE, Herman MG, Beltran C. A Monte-Carlo-based and GPU-accelerated 4D-dose calculator for a pencil beam scanning proton therapy system. Med Phys 2018; 45:5293-5304. [PMID: 30203550 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2018] [Revised: 08/30/2018] [Accepted: 08/31/2018] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The presence of respiratory motion during radiation treatment leads to degradation of the expected dose distribution, both for target coverage and healthy tissue sparing, particularly for techniques like pencil beam scanning proton therapy which have dynamic delivery systems. While tools exist to estimate this degraded four-dimensional (4D) dose, they typically have one or more deficiencies such as not including the particular effects from a dynamic delivery, using analytical dose calculations, and/or using nonphysical dose-accumulation methods. This work presents a clinically useful 4D-dose calculator that addresses each of these shortcomings. METHODS To quickly compute the 4D dose, the three main tasks of the calculator were run on graphics processing units (GPUs). These tasks were (a) simulating the delivery of the plan using measured delivery parameters to distribute the plan amongst 4DCT phases characterizing the patient breathing, (b) using an in-house Monte Carlo simulation (MC) dose calculator to determine the dose delivered to each breathing phase, and (c) accumulating the doses from the various breathing phases onto a single phase for evaluation. The accumulation was performed by individually transferring the energy and mass of dose-grid subvoxels, a technique that models the transfer of dose in a more physically realistic manner. The calculator was run on three test cases, with lung, esophagus, and liver targets, respectively, to assess the various uncertainties in the beam delivery simulation as well as to characterize the dose-accumulation technique. RESULTS Four-dimensional doses were successfully computed for the three test cases with computation times ranging from 4-6 min on a server with eight NVIDIA Titan X graphics cards; the most time-consuming component was the MC dose engine. The subvoxel-based dose-accumulation technique produced stable 4D-dose distributions at subvoxel scales of 0.5-1.0 mm without impairing the total computation time. The uncertainties in the beam delivery simulation led to moderate variations of the dose-volume histograms for these cases; the variations were reduced by implementing repainting or phase-gating motion mitigation techniques in the calculator. CONCLUSIONS A MC-based and GPU-accelerated 4D-dose calculator was developed to estimate the effects of respiratory motion on pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments. After future validation, the calculator could be used to assess treatment plans and its quick runtime would make it easily usable in a future 4D-robust optimization system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark D Pepin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Erik Tryggestad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Hok Seum Wan Chan Tseung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Jedediah E Johnson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Michael G Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Chris Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Trnková P, Knäusl B, Actis O, Bert C, Biegun AK, Boehlen TT, Furtado H, McClelland J, Mori S, Rinaldi I, Rucinski A, Knopf AC. Clinical implementations of 4D pencil beam scanned particle therapy: Report on the 4D treatment planning workshop 2016 and 2017. Phys Med 2018; 54:121-130. [PMID: 30337001 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2018] [Revised: 09/18/2018] [Accepted: 10/02/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
In 2016 and 2017, the 8th and 9th 4D treatment planning workshop took place in Groningen (the Netherlands) and Vienna (Austria), respectively. This annual workshop brings together international experts to discuss research, advances in clinical implementation as well as problems and challenges in 4D treatment planning, mainly in spot scanned proton therapy. In the last two years several aspects like treatment planning, beam delivery, Monte Carlo simulations, motion modeling and monitoring, QA phantoms as well as 4D imaging were thoroughly discussed. This report provides an overview of discussed topics, recent findings and literature review from the last two years. Its main focus is to highlight translation of 4D research into clinical practice and to discuss remaining challenges and pitfalls that still need to be addressed and to be overcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Petra Trnková
- HollandPTC, P.O. Box 5046, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands; Erasmus MC, P.O. Box 5201, 3008 AE Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Barbara Knäusl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH Vienna, Austria
| | - Oxana Actis
- Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Christoph Bert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
| | - Aleksandra K Biegun
- KVI-Center for Advanced Radiation Technology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Till T Boehlen
- Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Hugo Furtado
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH Vienna, Austria
| | - Jamie McClelland
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, Dept. Medical Physics and Biomedical, University College London, London, UK
| | - Shinichiro Mori
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences for Charged Particle Therapy, Chiba, Japan
| | - Ilaria Rinaldi
- Lyon 1 University and CNRS/IN2P3, UMR 5822, 69622 Villeurbanne, France; MAASTRO Clinic, P.O. Box 3035, 6202 NA Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Antje C Knopf
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Molitoris JK, Diwanji T, Snider JW, Mossahebi S, Samanta S, Badiyan SN, Simone CB, Mohindra P. Advances in the use of motion management and image guidance in radiation therapy treatment for lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10:S2437-S2450. [PMID: 30206490 PMCID: PMC6123191 DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2018] [Accepted: 01/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
The development of advanced radiation technologies, including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and proton therapy, has resulted in increasingly conformal radiation treatments. Recent evidence for the importance of minimizing dose to normal critical structures including the heart and lungs has led to incorporation of these advanced treatment modalities into radiation therapy (RT) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While such technologies have allowed for improved dose delivery, implementation requires improved target accuracy with treatments, placing increasing importance on evaluating tumor motion at the time of planning and verifying tumor position at the time of treatment. In this review article, we describe issues and updates related both to motion management and image guidance in the treatment of NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason K. Molitoris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Tejan Diwanji
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - James W. Snider
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Sina Mossahebi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Santanu Samanta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Shahed N. Badiyan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Charles B. Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Pranshu Mohindra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Vyfhuis MAL, Rice S, Remick J, Mossahebi S, Badiyan S, Mohindra P, Simone CB. Reirradiation for locoregionally recurrent non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10:S2522-S2536. [PMID: 30206496 PMCID: PMC6123190 DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.12.50] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2017] [Accepted: 12/08/2017] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Locoregional failure in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains high, and the management for recurrent disease in the setting of prior radiotherapy is difficult. Retreatment options such as surgery or systemic therapy are typically limited or frequently result in suboptimal outcomes. Reirradiation (reRT) of thoracic malignancies may be an optimal strategy for providing definitive local control and offering a new chance of cure. Yet, retreatment with radiation therapy can be challenging for fear of excessive toxicities and the inability to safely deliver definitive (≥60 Gy) doses of reRT. However, with recent improvements in radiation delivery techniques and image-guidance, dose-escalation with reRT is possible and outcomes are encouraging. Here, we present a review of various radiation techniques, clinical outcomes and associated toxicities in patients with locoregionally recurrent NSCLC treated primarily with reRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa A L Vyfhuis
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stephanie Rice
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jill Remick
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Sina Mossahebi
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Shahed Badiyan
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Pranshu Mohindra
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Charles B Simone
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Badiyan SN, Molitoris JK, Zhu M, Glass E, Diwanji T, Simone CB. Proton beam therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2018; 7:189-198. [PMID: 29876318 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2018.04.07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. Surgical techniques have made incremental improvements over the last few decades while new systemic therapies, including immunotherapies, show promise as potentially effective novel therapies. Radiation therapy has historically been used only in the palliative setting or as adjuvant therapy after extrapleural pneumonectomy, but recent advances in treatment planning and delivery techniques utilizing intensity-modulated radiation therapy and more recently pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy, have enabled the delivery of radiation therapy as neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy after an extended pleurectomy and decortication or as definitive therapy for patients with recurrent or unresectable disease. In particular, PBS proton therapy has the potential to deliver high doses of irradiation to the entire effected pleura while significantly reducing doses to nearby organs at risk. This article describes the evolution of radiation therapy for MPM and details how whole-pleural PBS proton therapy is delivered to patients at the Maryland Proton Treatment Center.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Mingyao Zhu
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Erica Glass
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Tejan Diwanji
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Maes D, Saini J, Zeng J, Rengan R, Wong T, Bowen SR. Advanced proton beam dosimetry part II: Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam-based planning for lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2018; 7:114-121. [PMID: 29876310 PMCID: PMC5960654 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2018.04.04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2017] [Accepted: 03/28/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton pencil beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms have limited accuracy within heterogeneous tissues of lung cancer patients, which may be addressed by modern commercial Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms. We investigated clinical pencil beam scanning (PBS) dose differences between PB and MC-based treatment planning for lung cancer patients. METHODS With IRB approval, a comparative dosimetric analysis between RayStation MC and PB dose engines was performed on ten patient plans. PBS gantry plans were generated using single-field optimization technique to maintain target coverage under range and setup uncertainties. Dose differences between PB-optimized (PBopt), MC-recalculated (MCrecalc), and MC-optimized (MCopt) plans were recorded for the following region-of-interest metrics: clinical target volume (CTV) V95, CTV homogeneity index (HI), total lung V20, total lung VRX (relative lung volume receiving prescribed dose or higher), and global maximum dose. The impact of PB-based and MC-based planning on robustness to systematic perturbation of range (±3% density) and setup (±3 mm isotropic) was assessed. Pairwise differences in dose parameters were evaluated through non-parametric Friedman and Wilcoxon sign-rank testing. RESULTS In this ten-patient sample, CTV V95 decreased significantly from 99-100% for PBopt to 77-94% for MCrecalc and recovered to 99-100% for MCopt (P<10-5). The median CTV HI (D95/D5) decreased from 0.98 for PBopt to 0.91 for MCrecalc and increased to 0.95 for MCopt (P<10-3). CTV D95 robustness to range and setup errors improved under MCopt (ΔD95 =-1%) compared to MCrecalc (ΔD95 =-6%, P=0.006). No changes in lung dosimetry were observed for large volumes receiving low to intermediate doses (e.g., V20), while differences between PB-based and MC-based planning were noted for small volumes receiving high doses (e.g., VRX). Global maximum patient dose increased from 106% for PBopt to 109% for MCrecalc and 112% for MCopt (P<10-3). CONCLUSIONS MC dosimetry revealed a reduction in target dose coverage under PB-based planning that was regained under MC-based planning along with improved plan robustness. MC-based optimization and dose calculation should be integrated into clinical planning workflows of lung cancer patients receiving actively scanned proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dominic Maes
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jatinder Saini
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jing Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Ramesh Rengan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Tony Wong
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Stephen R. Bowen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Li X, Kabolizadeh P, Yan D, Qin A, Zhou J, Hong Y, Guerrero T, Grills I, Stevens C, Ding X. Improve dosimetric outcome in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer treatment using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy. Radiat Oncol 2018; 13:35. [PMID: 29486782 PMCID: PMC6389253 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-018-0981-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2017] [Accepted: 02/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoqiang Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
| | - Peyman Kabolizadeh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Di Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - An Qin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Jun Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Ye Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Thomas Guerrero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Inga Grills
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Craig Stevens
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Verma V, Simone CB. Approaches to stereotactic body radiation therapy for large (≥5 centimeter) non-small cell lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2018; 8:70-77. [PMID: 30788236 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2018.06.10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Although larger (≥5 cm) node-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lesions are altogether uncommon, their incidence may increase following the implementation of lung cancer screening. A rigorous assessment of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for these challenging cases is imperative not only owing to concerns of increased risks when delivering ablative doses to large volumes, but also due to lack of prospective data, as these patients were excluded from seminal phase II SBRT trials. In addition to appraising the available institutional or multi-institutional experiences, multiple strategies to reduce toxicities are discussed. These include exploration of several different dose/fractionation schemes and regimens, as well as specialized techniques for SBRT treatment planning and delivery. Because these lesions have a higher rate of occult lymphatic or distant spread, the role of systemic therapies (including chemotherapy and immunotherapy) are also discussed. Altogether, the publication of several key reports, entirely over the last few years, has created a more solid foundation with which to utilize evidence-based management for this unique patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek Verma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Vyfhuis MA, Onyeuku N, Diwanji T, Mossahebi S, Amin NP, Badiyan SN, Mohindra P, Simone CB. Advances in proton therapy in lung cancer. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2018; 12:1753466618783878. [PMID: 30014783 PMCID: PMC6050808 DOI: 10.1177/1753466618783878] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States (US) and worldwide. Radiation therapy is a mainstay in the treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and serves as an excellent alternative for early stage patients who are medically inoperable or who decline surgery. Proton therapy has been shown to offer a significant dosimetric advantage in NSCLC patients over photon therapy, with a decrease in dose to vital organs at risk (OARs) including the heart, lungs and esophagus. This in turn, can lead to a decrease in acute and late toxicities in a population already predisposed to lung and cardiac injury. Here, we present a review on proton treatment techniques, studies, clinical outcomes and toxicities associated with treating both early stage and locally advanced NSCLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa A.L. Vyfhuis
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Nasarachi Onyeuku
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Tejan Diwanji
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Sina Mossahebi
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Neha P. Amin
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Shahed N. Badiyan
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Pranshu Mohindra
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Charles B. Simone
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, 850 West Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201,
USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Grau C, Høyer M, Poulsen PR, Muren LP, Korreman SS, Tanderup K, Lindegaard JC, Alsner J, Overgaard J. Rethink radiotherapy - BIGART 2017. Acta Oncol 2017; 56:1341-1352. [PMID: 29148908 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1371326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Cai Grau
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Morten Høyer
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Ludvig Paul Muren
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Kari Tanderup
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Jan Alsner
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Jens Overgaard
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Poulsen PR, Eley J, Langner U, Simone CB, Langen K. Efficient Interplay Effect Mitigation for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning by Spot-Adapted Layered Repainting Evenly Spread out Over the Full Breathing Cycle. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 100:226-234. [PMID: 29254775 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2017] [Revised: 09/06/2017] [Accepted: 09/22/2017] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop and implement a practical repainting method for efficient interplay effect mitigation in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS). METHODS AND MATERIALS A new flexible repainting scheme with spot-adapted numbers of repainting evenly spread out over the whole breathing cycle (assumed to be 4 seconds) was developed. Twelve fields from 5 thoracic and upper abdominal PBS plans were delivered 3 times using the new repainting scheme to an ion chamber array on a motion stage. One time was static and 2 used 4-second, 3-cm peak-to-peak sinusoidal motion with delivery started at maximum inhalation and maximum exhalation. For comparison, all dose measurements were repeated with no repainting and with 8 repaintings. For each motion experiment, the 3%/3-mm gamma pass rate was calculated using the motion-convolved static dose as the reference. Simulations were first validated with the experiments and then used to extend the study to 0- to 5-cm motion magnitude, 2- to 6-second motion periods, patient-measured liver tumor motion, and 1- to 6-fraction treatments. The effect of the proposed method was evaluated for the 5 clinical cases using 4-dimensional (4D) dose reconstruction in the planning 4D computed tomography scan. The target homogeneity index, HI = (D2 - D98)/Dmean, of a single-fraction delivery is reported, where D2 and D98 is the dose delivered to 2% and 98% of the target, respectively, and Dmean is the mean dose. RESULTS The gamma pass rates were 59.6% ± 9.7% with no repainting, 76.5% ± 10.8% with 8 repaintings, and 92.4% ± 3.8% with the new repainting scheme. Simulations reproduced the experimental gamma pass rates with a 1.3% root-mean-square error and demonstrated largely improved gamma pass rates with the new repainting scheme for all investigated motion scenarios. One- and two-fraction deliveries with the new repainting scheme had gamma pass rates similar to those of 3-4 and 6-fraction deliveries with 8 repaintings. The mean HI for the 5 clinical cases was 14.2% with no repainting, 13.7% with 8 repaintings, 12.0% with the new repainting scheme, and 11.6% for the 4D dose without interplay effects. CONCLUSIONS A novel repainting strategy for efficient interplay effect mitigation was proposed, implemented, and shown to outperform conventional repainting in experiments, simulations, and dose reconstructions. This strategy could allow for safe and more optimal clinical delivery of thoracic and abdominal proton PBS and better facilitate hypofractionated and stereotactic treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - John Eley
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ulrich Langner
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Charles B Simone
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Katja Langen
- Maryland Proton Treatment Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Vogel J, Lin L, Simone CB, Berman AT. Risk of major cardiac events following adjuvant proton versus photon radiation therapy for patients with thymic malignancies. Acta Oncol 2017; 56:1060-1064. [PMID: 28338373 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1302097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While often managed with surgery alone, patients with thymic malignancies with high-risk features may benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy but are at risk for late toxicities. Previously, the risk of major cardiac events (MCEs) was reported to increase by 7% per one Gray (Gy) to the heart. In this study, we compare dose to organs at risk (OARs) with intensity-modulated (IMRT) versus proton beam therapy (PBT). We hypothesize a decrease risk of predicted MCEs with PBT. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients requiring adjuvant therapy for thymic malignancies were treated with double scattered proton beam therapy (DS-PBT). Clinical backup IMRT plans were generated. Predicted MCEs were calculated based on median dose to the heart. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS Twenty-two consecutive patients were evaluated. DS-PBT resulted in statistically significant decreases in dose to the heart, lungs, left ventricle, esophagus, and spinal cord (all p ≤ .01). The increase in risk of MCEs from 0 to ≥20 years was lower with PBT (74% versus 135%, p = .04). DISCUSSION DS-PBT results in decreased dose to OARs and may reduce the risk of MCEs compared with IMRT. Long-term follow-up is required to assess for clinical benefit from DS-PBT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Vogel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Liyong Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Charles B. Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Abigail T. Berman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Rwigema JCM, Verma V, Lin L, Berman AT, Levin WP, Evans TL, Aggarwal C, Rengan R, Langer C, Cohen RB, Simone CB. Prospective study of proton-beam radiation therapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Cancer 2017; 123:4244-4251. [PMID: 28678434 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30870] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2017] [Revised: 05/09/2017] [Accepted: 05/30/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Existing data supporting the use of proton-beam therapy (PBT) for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) are limited to a single 6-patient case series. This is the first prospective study to evaluate clinical outcomes and toxicities of PBT for LS-SCLC. METHODS This study prospectively analyzed patients with primary, nonrecurrent LS-SCLC definitively treated with PBT and concurrent chemotherapy from 2011 to 2016. Clinical backup intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were generated for each patient and were compared with PBT plans. Outcome measures included local control (LC), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) rates and toxicities. RESULTS Thirty consecutive patients were enrolled and evaluated. The median dose was 63.9 cobalt gray equivalents (range, 45-66.6 cobalt gray equivalents) in 33 to 37 fractions delivered daily (n = 18 [60.0%]) or twice daily (n = 12 [40.0%]). The concurrent chemotherapy was cisplatin/etoposide (n = 21 [70.0%]) or carboplatin/etoposide (n = 9 [30.0%]). In comparison with the backup IMRT plans, PBT allowed statistically significant reductions in the cord, heart, and lung mean doses and the volume receiving at least 5 Gy but not in the esophagus mean dose or the lung volume receiving at least 20 Gy. At a median follow-up of 14 months, the 1-/2-year LC and RFS rates were 85%/69% and 63%/42%, respectively. The median OS was 28.2 months, and the 1-/2-year OS rates were 72%/58%. There was 1 case each (3.3%) of grade 3 or higher esophagitis, pneumonitis, anorexia, and pericardial effusion. Grade 2 pneumonitis and esophagitis were seen in 10.0% and 43.3% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In the first prospective registry study and largest analysis to date of PBT for LS-SCLC, PBT was found to be safe with a limited incidence of high-grade toxicities. Cancer 2017;123:4244-4251. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean-Claude M Rwigema
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Vivek Verma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
| | - Liyong Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Abigail T Berman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - William P Levin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Tracey L Evans
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Charu Aggarwal
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ramesh Rengan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Corey Langer
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Roger B Cohen
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Lee E, Zeng J, Miyaoka RS, Saini J, Kinahan PE, Sandison GA, Wong T, Vesselle HJ, Rengan R, Bowen SR. Functional lung avoidance and response-adaptive escalation (FLARE) RT: Multimodality plan dosimetry of a precision radiation oncology strategy. Med Phys 2017; 44:3418-3429. [PMID: 28453861 DOI: 10.1002/mp.12308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2016] [Revised: 03/22/2017] [Accepted: 04/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient radiation therapy (RT) is planned without consideration of spatial heterogeneity in lung function or tumor response. We assessed the dosimetric and clinical feasibility of functional lung avoidance and response-adaptive escalation (FLARE) RT to reduce dose to [99m Tc]MAA-SPECT/CT perfused lung while redistributing an escalated boost dose within [18 F]FDG-PET/CT-defined biological target volumes (BTV). METHODS Eight stage IIB-IIIB NSCLC patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and MAA-SPECT/CT treatment planning scans. Perfused lung objectives were derived from scatter/collimator/attenuation-corrected MAA-SPECT uptake relative to ITV-subtracted lung to maintain < 20 Gy mean lung dose (MLD). Prescriptions included 60 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) and concomitant boost of 74 Gy mean to biological target volumes (BTV = GTV + PET gradient segmentation) scaled to each BTV voxel by relative FDG-PET SUV. Dose-painting-by-numbers prescriptions were integrated into commercial treatment planning systems via uptake threshold discretization. Dose constraints for lung, heart, cord, and esophagus were defined. FLARE RT plans were optimized with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) with 3%-3 mm robust optimization, and combination of PBS (avoidance) plus VMAT (escalation). The high boost dose region was evaluated within a standardized SUVpeak structure. FLARE RT plans were compared to reference VMAT plans. Linear regression between radiation dose to BTV and normalized FDG PET SUV at every voxel was conducted, from which Pearson linear correlation coefficients and regression slopes were extracted. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were estimated between radiation dose to lung and normalized SPECT uptake. Dosimetric differences between treatment modalities were evaluated by Friedman nonparametric paired test with multiple sampling correction. RESULTS No unacceptable violations of PTV and normal tissue objectives were observed in 24 FLARE RT plans. Compared to reference VMAT plans, FLARE VMAT plans achieved a higher mean dose to BTV (73.7 Gy 98195. 61.3 Gy), higher mean dose to SUVpeak (89.7 Gy vs. 60.8 Gy), and lower mean dose to highly perfused lung (7.3 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy). These dosimetric gains came at the expense of higher mean heart dose (9.4 Gy vs. 5.8 Gy) and higher maximum cord dose (50.1 Gy vs. 44.6 Gy) relative to the reference VMAT plans. Between FLARE plans, FLARE VMAT achieved higher dose to the SUVpeak ROI than FLARE PBS (89.7 Gy vs. 79.2 Gy, P = 0.01), while FLARE PBS delivered lower dose to lung than FLARE VMAT (11.9 Gy vs. 15.6 Gy, P < 0.001). Voxelwise linear dose redistribution slope between BTV dose and FDG PET uptake was higher in magnitude for FLARE PBS + VMAT (0.36 Gy per %SUVmax ) compared to FLARE VMAT (0.27 Gy per %SUVmax ) or FLARE PBS alone (0.17 Gy per %SUVmax ). CONCLUSIONS FLARE RT is clinically feasible with VMAT and PBS. A combination of PBS for functional lung avoidance and VMAT for FDG PET dose escalation balanced target and normal tissue objective tradeoffs. These results provide a technical platform for testing of FLARE RT safety and efficacy within a precision radiation oncology trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eunsin Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Jing Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Robert S Miyaoka
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Jatinder Saini
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, 1570 N 115th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98133, USA
| | - Paul E Kinahan
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - George A Sandison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Tony Wong
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, 1570 N 115th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98133, USA
| | - Hubert J Vesselle
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Ramesh Rengan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Stephen R Bowen
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| |
Collapse
|