1
|
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
|
2
|
Tominaga Y, Oita M, Miyata J, Kato T. Experimental validation of a 4D dynamic dose calculation model for proton pencil beam scanning without spot time stamp considering free-breathing motion. Med Phys 2024; 51:566-578. [PMID: 37672227 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16725] [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: 03/24/2023] [Revised: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/20/2023] [Indexed: 09/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We developed a 4-dimensional dynamic dose (4DDD) calculation model for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS). This model incorporates the spill start time for all energies and uses the remaining irradiated spot time model instead of irradiated spot time logs. This study aimed to validate the calculation accuracy of a log file-based 4DDD model by comparing it with dose measurements performed under free-breathing conditions, thereby serving as an alternative approach to the conventional log file-based system. METHODS Three cubic verification plans were created using a heterogeneous block phantom; these plans were created using 10 phase 4D-CT datasets of the phantom. The CIRS dynamic platform was used to simulate motion with amplitudes of 2.5, 3.75, and 5.0 mm. These plans consisted of eight- and two-layered rescanning techniques. The lateral profiles were measured using a 2D ionization chamber array (2D-array) and EBT3 Gafchromic films at four starting phases, including three sinusoidal curves (periods of 3, 4, and 6 s) and a representative patient curve during actual treatment. 4DDDs were calculated using in-house scripting that assigned a time stamp to each spot and performed dose accumulation using deformable image registration. Furthermore, to evaluate the impact of parameter selection on our 4DDD model calculations, simulations were performed assuming a ±10% change in irradiation time stamp (0.8 ± 0.08 s) and spot scan speed. We evaluated the 2D gamma index and the absolute point doses between the calculated values and the measurements. RESULTS The 2D-array measurements revealed that the gamma scores for the static plans (no motion) and 4DDD plans exceeded 97.5% and 93.9% at 3%/3 mm, respectively. The average gamma score of the 4DDD plans was at least 96.1%. When using EBT3 films, the gamma scores of the 4DDD model exceeded 92.4% and 98.7% at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm, respectively. Regarding the 4DDD point dose differences, more than 95% of the dose regions exhibited discrepancies within ±5.0% for 97.7% of the total points across all plans. The spot time assignment accuracy of our 4DDD model was acceptable even with ±10% sensitivity. However, the accuracy of the scan speed, when varied within ±10% sensitivity, was not acceptable (minimum gamma scores of 82.6% and maximum dose difference of 12.9%). CONCLUSIONS Our 4DDD calculations under free-breathing conditions using amplitudes of less than 5.0 mm were in good agreement with the measurements regardless of the starting phases, breathing curve patterns (between 3 and 6 s periods), and varying numbers of layered rescanning. The proposed system allows us to evaluate actual irradiated doses in various breathing periods, amplitudes, and starting phases, even on PBS machines without the ability to record spot logs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuki Tominaga
- Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health Systems, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
- Osaka Proton Therapy Clinic, Department of Radiotherapy, Medical Co. Hakuhokai, Osaka, Osaka, Japan
| | - Masataka Oita
- Faculty of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health Systems, Okayama University, Okayama, Okayama, Japan
| | - Junya Miyata
- Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in Health Systems, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
- Department of Radiological Technology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan
| | - Takahiro Kato
- Department of Radiological Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Koriyama, Fukushima, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
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
|
4
|
Pastor-Serrano O, Habraken S, Lathouwers D, Hoogeman M, Schaart D, Perkó Z. How should we model and evaluate breathing interplay effects in IMPT? Phys Med Biol 2021; 66. [PMID: 34757958 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac383f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2021] [Accepted: 11/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Breathing interplay effects in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) arise from the interaction between target motion and the scanning beam. Assessing the detrimental effect of interplay and the clinical robustness of several mitigation techniques requires statistical evaluation procedures that take into account the variability of breathing during dose delivery. In this study, we present such a statistical method to model intra-fraction respiratory motion based on breathing signals and assess clinical relevant aspects related to the practical evaluation of interplay in IMPT such as how to model irregular breathing, how small breathing changes affect the final dose distribution, and what is the statistical power (number of different scenarios) required for trustworthy quantification of interplay effects. First, two data-driven methodologies to generate artificial patient-specific breathing signals are compared: a simple sinusoidal model, and a precise probabilistic deep learning model generating very realistic samples of patient breathing. Second, we investigate the highly fluctuating relationship between interplay doses and breathing parameters, showing that small changes in breathing period result in large local variations in the dose. Our results indicate that using a limited number of samples to calculate interplay statistics introduces a bigger error than using simple sinusoidal models based on patient parameters or disregarding breathing hysteresis during the evaluation. We illustrate the power of the presented statistical method by analyzing interplay robustness of 4DCT and Internal Target Volume (ITV) treatment plans for a 8 lung cancer patients, showing that, unlike 4DCT plans, even 33 fraction ITV plans systematically fail to fulfill robustness requirements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oscar Pastor-Serrano
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Steven Habraken
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,HollandPTC, Department of Radiation Oncology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Danny Lathouwers
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Mischa Hoogeman
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,HollandPTC, Department of Radiation Oncology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Dennis Schaart
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.,HollandPTC, Department of Radiation Oncology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Zoltán Perkó
- Delft University of Technology, Department of Radiation Science and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Schmitz H, Rabe M, Janssens G, Bondesson D, Rit S, Parodi K, Belka C, Dinkel J, Kurz C, Kamp F, Landry G. Validation of proton dose calculation on scatter corrected 4D cone beam computed tomography using a porcine lung phantom. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66. [PMID: 34293737 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac16e9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Proton therapy treatment for lungs remains challenging as images enabling the detection of inter- and intra-fractional motion, which could be used for proton dose adaptation, are not readily available. 4D computed tomography (4DCT) provides high image quality but is rarely available in-room, while in-room 4D cone beam computed tomography (4DCBCT) suffers from image quality limitations stemming mostly from scatter detection. This study investigated the feasibility of using virtual 4D computed tomography (4DvCT) as a prior for a phase-per-phase scatter correction algorithm yielding a 4D scatter corrected cone beam computed tomography image (4DCBCTcor), which can be used for proton dose calculation. 4DCT and 4DCBCT scans of a porcine lung phantom, which generated reproducible ventilation, were acquired with matching breathing patterns. Diffeomorphic Morphons, a deformable image registration algorithm, was used to register the mid-position 4DCT to the mid-position 4DCBCT and yield a 4DvCT. The 4DCBCT was reconstructed using motion-aware reconstruction based on spatial and temporal regularization (MA-ROOSTER). Successively for each phase, digitally reconstructed radiographs of the 4DvCT, simulated without scatter, were exploited to correct scatter in the corresponding CBCT projections. The 4DCBCTcorwas then reconstructed with MA-ROOSTER using the corrected CBCT projections and the same settings and deformation vector fields as those already used for reconstructing the 4DCBCT. The 4DCBCTcorand the 4DvCT were evaluated phase-by-phase, performing proton dose calculations and comparison to those of a ground truth 4DCT by means of dose-volume-histograms (DVH) and gamma pass-rates (PR). For accumulated doses, DVH parameters deviated by at most 1.7% in the 4DvCT and 2.0% in the 4DCBCTcorcase. The gamma PR for a (2%, 2 mm) criterion with 10% threshold were at least 93.2% (4DvCT) and 94.2% (4DCBCTcor), respectively. The 4DCBCTcortechnique enabled accurate proton dose calculation, which indicates the potential for applicability to clinical 4DCBCT scans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henning Schmitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Moritz Rabe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | | | - David Bondesson
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Simon Rit
- Univ Lyon, INSA-Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, UJM-Saint Etienne, CNRS, Inserm, CREATIS UMR 5220, U1206, F-69373, LYON, France
| | - Katia Parodi
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching (Munich), Germany
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Julien Dinkel
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christopher Kurz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching (Munich), Germany
| | - Florian Kamp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Guillaume Landry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching (Munich), Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Taasti VT, Hattu D, Vaassen F, Canters R, Velders M, Mannens J, van Loon J, Rinaldi I, Unipan M, van Elmpt W. Treatment planning and 4D robust evaluation strategy for proton therapy of lung tumors with large motion amplitude. Med Phys 2021; 48:4425-4437. [PMID: 34214201 PMCID: PMC8456954 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2021] [Revised: 05/29/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung tumors with a large tumor movement is challenging due to loss of robustness in the target coverage. Often an upper cut‐off at 5‐mm tumor movement is used for proton patient selection. In this study, we propose (1) a robust and easily implementable treatment planning strategy for lung tumors with a movement larger than 5 mm, and (2) a four‐dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) robust evaluation strategy for evaluating the dose distribution on the breathing phases. Materials and methods We created a treatment planning strategy based on the internal target volume (ITV) concept (aim 1). The ITV was created as a union of the clinical target volumes (CTVs) on the eight 4DCT phases. The ITV expanded by 2 mm was the target during robust optimization on the average CT (avgCT). The clinical plan acceptability was judged based on a robust evaluation, computing the voxel‐wise min and max (VWmin/max) doses over 28 error scenarios (range and setup errors) on the avgCT. The plans were created in RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) using a Monte Carlo dose engine, commissioned for our Mevion S250i Hyperscan system (Mevion Medical Systems, Littleton, MA, USA). We developed a new 4D robust evaluation approach (4DRobAvg; aim 2). The 28 scenario doses were computed on each individual 4DCT phase. For each scenario, the dose distributions on the individual phases were deformed to the reference phase and combined to a weighted sum, resulting in 28 weighted sum scenario dose distributions. From these 28 scenario doses, VWmin/max doses were computed. This new 4D robust evaluation was compared to two simpler 4D evaluation strategies: re‐computing the nominal plan on each individual 4DCT phase (4DNom) and computing the robust VWmin/max doses on each individual phase (4DRobInd). The treatment planning and dose evaluation strategies were evaluated for 16 lung cancer patients with tumor movement of 4–26 mm. Results The ratio of the ITV and CTV volumes increased linearly with the tumor amplitude, with an average ratio of 1.4. Despite large ITV volumes, a clinically acceptable plan fulfilling all target and organ at risk (OAR) constraints was feasible for all patients. The 4DNom and 4DRobInd evaluation strategies were found to under‐ or overestimate the dosimetric effect of the tumor movement, respectively. 4DRobInd showed target underdosage for five patients, not observed in the robust evaluation on the avgCT or in 4DRobAvg. The accuracy of dose deformation used in 4DRobAvg was quantified and found acceptable, with differences for the dose‐volume parameters below 1 Gy in most cases. Conclusion The proposed ITV‐based planning strategy on the avgCT was found to be a clinically feasible approach with adequate tumor coverage and no OAR overdosage even for large tumor movement. The new proposed 4D robust evaluation, 4DRobAvg, was shown to give an easily interpretable understanding of the effect of respiratory motion dose distribution, and to give an accurate estimate of the dose delivered in the different breathing phases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vicki Trier Taasti
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Djoya Hattu
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Femke Vaassen
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Richard Canters
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Marije Velders
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Jolein Mannens
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Judith van Loon
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Ilaria Rinaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Mirko Unipan
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Wouter van Elmpt
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Peeters STH, Vaassen F, Hazelaar C, Vaniqui A, Rousch E, Tissen D, Van Enckevort E, De Wolf M, Öllers MC, van Elmpt W, Verhoeven K, Van Loon JGM, Vosse BA, De Ruysscher DKM, Vilches-Freixas G. Visually guided inspiration breath-hold facilitated with nasal high flow therapy in locally advanced lung cancer. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:567-574. [PMID: 33295823 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2020.1856408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Reducing breathing motion in radiotherapy (RT) is an attractive strategy to reduce margins and better spare normal tissues. The objective of this prospective study (NCT03729661) was to investigate the feasibility of irradiation of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with visually guided moderate deep inspiration breath-hold (IBH) using nasal high-flow therapy (NHFT). MATERIAL AND METHODS Locally advanced NSCLC patients undergoing photon RT were given NHFT with heated humidified air (flow: 40 L/min with 80% oxygen) through a nasal cannula. IBH was monitored by optical surface tracking (OST) with visual feedback. At a training session, patients had to hold their breath as long as possible, without and with NHFT. For the daily cone beam CT (CBCT) and RT treatment in IBH, patients were instructed to keep their BH as long as it felt comfortable. OST was used to analyze stability and reproducibility of the BH, and CBCT to analyze daily tumor position. Subjective tolerance was measured with a questionnaire at 3 time points. RESULTS Of 10 included patients, 9 were treated with RT. Seven (78%) completed the treatment with NHFT as planned. At the training session, the mean BH length without NHFT was 39 s (range 15-86 s), and with NHFT 78 s (range 29-223 s) (p = .005). NHFT prolonged the BH duration by a mean factor of 2.1 (range 1.1-3.9s). The mean overall stability and reproducibility were within 1 mm. Subjective tolerance was very good with the majority of patients having no or minor discomfort caused by the devices. The mean inter-fraction tumor position variability was 1.8 mm (-1.1-8.1 mm;SD 2.4 mm). CONCLUSION NHFT for RT treatment of NSCLC in BH is feasible, well tolerated and significantly increases the breath-hold duration. Visually guided BH with OST is stable and reproducible. We therefore consider this an attractive patient-friendly approach to treat lung cancer patients with RT in BH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie T. H. Peeters
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Femke Vaassen
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Colien Hazelaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Ana Vaniqui
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Eva Rousch
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Debby Tissen
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Van Enckevort
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Michiel De Wolf
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Michel C. Öllers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter van Elmpt
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Karolien Verhoeven
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Judith G. M. Van Loon
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Bettine A. Vosse
- Department of Pulmonology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk K. M. De Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Gloria Vilches-Freixas
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Jie AW, Marignol L. Pro-con of proton: Dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulation over passive scatter for thoracic malignancies. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:37-46. [PMID: 32954018 PMCID: PMC7486544 DOI: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2019.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2019] [Revised: 10/18/2019] [Accepted: 11/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) results in significant reduction of dose to organ at risk. Improving plan robustness mitigates interplay effects. Blanket use of small spots on a group of patients may severely worsen interplay in selected patients. Hypofractionated regimes have fewer interplay effects in both fractional and overall simulations. Randomised control trials are required before any clinical benefit of IMPT can be confirmed.
The use of passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) or intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) opens the potential for dose escalation or critical structure sparing in thoracic malignancies. While the latter offers greater dose conformality, dose distributions are subjected to greater uncertainties, especially due to interplay effects. Exploration in this area is warranted to determine if there is any dosimetric advantages in using IMPT for thoracic malignancies. This review aims to both compare organs-at-risk sparing and plan robustness between PSPT and IMPT and examine the mitigation strategies for the reduction of interplay effects currently available. Early evidence suggests that IMPT is dosimetrically superior to PSPT in thoracic malignancies. Randomised control trials are required before any clinical benefit of IMPT can be confirmed.
Collapse
Key Words
- BSPTV, Beam Specific Planning Target Volume
- CT, Computed Tomography
- DIBH, Deep Inspiration Breath-Hold
- Dosimetry
- EUD, Equivalent Uniform Dose
- HI, Homogeneity Index
- IMPT, Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy
- IMRT, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy
- ITV, Internal Target Volume
- Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT)
- Interplay
- MFO, Multi Field Optimisation
- MU, Monitor Unit
- NSCLC, Non-Small-Cell Lung cancer
- OAR, Organ-At-Risk
- Organ at risks
- PSPT, Passively Scattered Proton Therapy
- PTV, Planning Target Volume
- Passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT)
- RT, Radiation Therapy
- SFO, Single Field Optimisation
- SFUD, Single Field Uniform Dose
- Thoracic malignancies
- iCTV, Internal Clinical Target Volume
- iGTV/HU, Internal Gross Tumour Volume/Hounsfield Unit
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ang Wei Jie
- Singapore Institute of Technology, Singapore
- Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Laure Marignol
- Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- Corresponding author.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
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
|
10
|
Nenoff L, Matter M, Jarhall AG, Winterhalter C, Gorgisyan J, Josipovic M, Persson GF, Munck af Rosenschold P, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Albertini F. Daily Adaptive Proton Therapy: Is it Appropriate to Use Analytical Dose Calculations for Plan Adaption? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:747-755. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2019] [Revised: 02/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
11
|
Nenoff L, Ribeiro CO, Matter M, Hafner L, Josipovic M, Langendijk JA, Persson GF, Walser M, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Knopf AC, Albertini F, Zhang Y. Deformable image registration uncertainty for inter-fractional dose accumulation of lung cancer proton therapy. Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:178-185. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2020] [Revised: 04/22/2020] [Accepted: 04/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
12
|
Troost EGC, Wink KCJ, Roelofs E, Simone CB, Makocki S, Löck S, van Kollenburg P, Dechambre D, Minken AWH, van der Stoep J, Avery S, Jansen N, Solberg T, Bussink J, de Ruysscher D. Photons or protons for reirradiation in (non-)small cell lung cancer: Results of the multicentric ROCOCO in silico study. Br J Radiol 2019; 93:20190879. [PMID: 31804145 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Locally recurrent disease is of increasing concern in (non-)small cell lung cancer [(N)SCLC] patients. Local reirradiation with photons or particles may be of benefit to these patients. In this multicentre in silico trial performed within the Radiation Oncology Collaborative Comparison (ROCOCO) consortium, the doses to the target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were compared when using several photon and proton techniques in patients with recurrent localised lung cancer scheduled to undergo reirradiation. METHODS 24 consecutive patients with a second primary (N)SCLC or recurrent disease after curative-intent, standard fractionated radio(chemo)therapy were included in this study. The target volumes and OARs were centrally contoured and distributed to the participating ROCOCO sites. Remaining doses to the OARs were calculated on an individual patient's basis. Treatment planning was performed by the participating site using the clinical treatment planning system and associated beam characteristics. RESULTS Treatment plans for all modalities (five photon and two proton plans per patient) were available for 22 patients (N = 154 plans). 3D-conformal photon therapy and double-scattered proton therapy delivered significantly lower doses to the target volumes. The highly conformal techniques, i.e., intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), CyberKnife, TomoTherapy and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), reached the highest doses in the target volumes. Of these, IMPT was able to statistically significantly decrease the radiation doses to the OARs. CONCLUSION Highly conformal photon and proton beam techniques enable high-dose reirradiation of the target volume. They, however, significantly differ in the dose deposited in the OARs. The therapeutic options, i.e., reirradiation or systemic therapy, need to be carefully weighed and discussed with the patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Highly conformal photon and proton beam techniques enable high-dose reirradiation of the target volume. In light of the abilities of the various highly conformal techniques to spare specific OARs, the therapeutic options need to be carefully weighed and patients included in the decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partnersite Dresden, Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Krista C J Wink
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Erik Roelofs
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, USA
| | - Sebastian Makocki
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay, National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partnersite Dresden, Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Peter van Kollenburg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - David Dechambre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Liege (CHU), Liege, Belgium.,Radiotherapy Department, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Judith van der Stoep
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Stephen Avery
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nicolas Jansen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Liege (CHU), Liege, Belgium
| | - Timothy Solberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Johan Bussink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Dirk de Ruysscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Li H, Zhang X, Li Y, Zhu RX. An analytical model for the upper bound estimation of respiratory motion-induced dose uncertainty in spot-scanning proton beam therapy. Med Phys 2019; 46:5249-5261. [PMID: 31502683 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 08/13/2019] [Accepted: 08/14/2019] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We developed an analytical model of a spot-scanning beam delivery system to estimate the upper bound of respiratory motion-induced dose uncertainty for a given treatment plan. METHODS The effective delivery time for each spot position in the treatment plan was calculated on the basis of the parameters of the delivery system. The upper bound of the dose uncertainty was then calculated as a function of the effective delivery time. Two-dimensional (2D) measurements with a detector array on a one-dimensional moving platform were obtained to validate the model. RESULTS We performed 351 two-dimensional measurements on a moving platform for different delivery sequences of a single-layer uniform pattern and patient treatment field. The measured dose uncertainty was a strong function of the effective delivery time: The shortest effective delivery time resulted in a maximum absolute dose error of >90%, while the longest ones resulted in a maximum absolute dose error of 4.9% for a single layer and 9.7% for a patient field with heterogeneity. The relationship of the effective delivery time and the measured dose uncertainty followed the analytical formula. CONCLUSIONS With our analytical model, the upper bound of the dose uncertainty due to motion can be estimated in spot-scanning proton therapy without four-dimensional dynamic dose calculation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yupeng Li
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ronald X Zhu
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Meijers A, Jakobi A, Stützer K, Guterres Marmitt G, Both S, Langendijk JA, Richter C, Knopf A. Log file-based dose reconstruction and accumulation for 4D adaptive pencil beam scanned proton therapy in a clinical treatment planning system: Implementation and proof-of-concept. Med Phys 2019; 46:1140-1149. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2018] [Revised: 12/21/2018] [Accepted: 12/21/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- A. Meijers
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen; Groningen The Netherlands
| | - A. Jakobi
- Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology; Technische Universität Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology; Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf; Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay; Dresden Germany
| | - K. Stützer
- Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology; Technische Universität Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf; Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay; Dresden Germany
| | - G. Guterres Marmitt
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen; Groningen The Netherlands
| | - S. Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen; Groningen The Netherlands
| | - J. A. Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen; Groningen The Netherlands
| | - C. Richter
- Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology; Technische Universität Dresden; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf; Dresden Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology; Faculty of Medicine; University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf; Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay; Dresden Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden; German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); Heidelberg Germany
| | - A. Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology; University Medical Center Groningen; University of Groningen; Groningen The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Dutz A, Troost EGC, Löck S. [Proton therapy not superior to IMRT in locally advanced NSCLC]. Strahlenther Onkol 2018; 194:790-793. [PMID: 29858611 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-018-1321-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Almut Dutz
- OncoRay - Nationales Zentrum für Strahlenforschung in der Onkologie, Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Deutschland
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay - Nationales Zentrum für Strahlenforschung in der Onkologie, Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Deutschland.,Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.,Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Standort Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.,Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Deutschland.,Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen (NCT), Standort Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland
| | - Steffen Löck
- OncoRay - Nationales Zentrum für Strahlenforschung in der Onkologie, Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland. .,Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland. .,Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Standort Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland. .,Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Deutschland.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Jensen MF, Hoffmann L, Petersen JBB, Møller DS, Alber M. Energy layer optimization strategies for intensity-modulated proton therapy of lung cancer patients. Med Phys 2018; 45:4355-4363. [PMID: 30129041 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2017] [Revised: 08/06/2018] [Accepted: 08/13/2018] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE When treating lung cancer patients with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), target coverage can only be guaranteed when utilizing motion mitigation. The three motion mitigation techniques, gating, breath-hold, and dose repainting, all benefit from a more rapid application of the treatment plan. A lower limit for the ungated treatment time is defined by the number of energy layers in the IMPT plan. By limiting this number during treatment planning, IMPT could become more viable for lung cancer patients. We investigate to what extend the number of layers can be reduced in single-field optimization (SFO) and multifield optimization (MFO) plans and which implications it has on the plan quality and robustness. METHODS We have implemented three distinct layer-reducing strategies in the treatment planning system Hyperion; constant energy steps, exponential energy steps, and an adaptive strategy, where the spot weights are exposed to a group sparsity penalty in combination with layer exclusion during optimization. Four levels of increasing layer removal are planned for each strategy. SFO and MFO plans with three treatment fields are created for eleven locally advanced NSCLC patients on the midventilation 4DCT phase to simulate a breath-hold. A minimum dose to the target is ensured for each degree of layer reduction, reflecting the plan quality in the homogeneity index (HI). Plan quality was also assessed by a robustness evaluation, where the patient setup was shifted 2 mm or 4 mm in six directions. RESULTS The three strategies result in very similar target coverages and robustness levels as a function of removed layers. The HI increases unacceptably for all the SFO plans after 50% layer removal as compared to the reference plan, while all the MFO plans are clinically acceptable with up to a highest removed percentage of 75%. The robustness level is constant as a function of removed layers. The SFO plans are significantly more robust than the MFO plans with all P-values below 0.001 (Wilcoxon signed-rank). The overall mean D98% CTV dose difference is at 2-mm setup error amplitude: 0.7 Gy (SFO) and 1.9 Gy (MFO), and at 4 mm: 3.2 Gy (SFO) and 5.4 Gy (MFO), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The number of layers in MFO plans can be reduced substantially more than in SFO plans without compromising plan quality. Furthermore, as the robustness is independent of the number of layers, it follows that if the level of robustness is acceptable or enforced via robust optimization, MFO plans could be candidates for treatment time reductions via energy layer reductions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Fuglsang Jensen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.,Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark
| | - L Hoffmann
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark
| | - J B B Petersen
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark
| | - D S Møller
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark
| | - M Alber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|