Organ sparing potential and inter-fraction robustness of adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer

Robustness evaluation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning: A systematic review

Compared to conventional radiotherapy using X-rays, proton therapy, in principle, allows better conformity of the dose distribution to target volumes, at the cost of greater sensitivity to physical, anatomical, and positioning uncertainties. Robust planning, both in terms of plan optimization and evaluation, has gained high visibility in publications on the subject and is part of clinical practice in many centers. However, there is currently no consensus on the methods and parameters to be used for robust optimization or robustness evaluation. We propose to overcome this deficiency by following the modified Delphi consensus method. This method first requires a systematic review of the literature. We performed this review using the PubMed and Web Of Science databases, via two different experts. Potential conflicts were resolved by a third expert. We then explored the different methods before focusing on clinical studies that evaluate robustness on a significant number of patients. Many robustness assessment methods are proposed in the literature. Some are more successful than others and their implementation varies between centers. Moreover, they are not all statistically or mathematically equivalent. The most sophisticated and rigorous methods have seen more limited application due to the difficulty of their implementation and their lack of widespread availability.

Clinical evaluation of synthetic computed tomography methods in adaptive proton therapy of lung cancer patients

Background and purpose

Efficient workflows for adaptive proton therapy are of high importance. This study evaluated the possibility to replace repeat-CTs (reCTs) with synthetic CTs (sCTs), created based on cone-beam CTs (CBCTs), for flagging the need of plan adaptations in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment of lung cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Forty-two IMPT patients were retrospectively included. For each patient, one CBCT and a same-day reCT were included. Two commercial sCT methods were applied; one based on CBCT number correction (Cor-sCT), and one based on deformable image registration (DIR-sCT). The clinical reCT workflow (deformable contour propagation and robust dose re-computation) was performed on the reCT as well as the two sCTs. The deformed target contours on the reCT/sCTs were checked by radiation oncologists and edited if needed. A dose-volume-histogram triggered plan adaptation method was compared between the reCT and the sCTs; patients needing a plan adaptation on the reCT but not on the sCT were denoted false negatives. As secondary evaluation, dose-volume-histogram comparison and gamma analysis (2%/2mm) were performed between the reCT and sCTs.

Results

There were five false negatives, two for Cor-sCT and three for DIR-sCT. However, three of these were only minor, and one was caused by tumour position differences between the reCT and CBCT and not by sCT quality issues. An average gamma pass rate of 93% was obtained for both sCT methods.

Conclusion

Both sCT methods were judged to be of clinical quality and valuable for reducing the amount of reCT acquisitions.

Clinical 3D/4D cumulative proton dose assessment methods for thoracic tumours with large motion

PURPOSE

Despite the anticipated clinical benefits of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), plan robustness may be compromised due to its sensitivity to patient treatment uncertainties, especially for tumours with large motion. In this study, we investigated treatment course-wise plan robustness for intra-thoracic tumours with large motion comparing a 4D pre-clinical evaluation method (4DREM) to our clinical 3D/4D dose reconstruction and accumulation methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients with large target motion (>10 mm) were treated with five times layered rescanned IMPT. The 3D-robust optimised plans were generated on the averaged planning 4DCT. Using multiple 4DCTs, treatment plan robustness was assessed on a weekly and treatment course-wise basis through the 3D robustness evaluation method (3DREM, based on averaged 4DCTs), the 4D robustness evaluation method (4DREM, including the time structure of treatment delivery and 4DCT phases) and 4D dose reconstruction and accumulation (4DREAL, based on fraction-wise information).

RESULTS

Baseline target motion for all patients ranged from 11-17 mm. For the offline adapted course-wise dose assessment, adequate target dose coverage was found for all patients. The target volume receiving 95% of the prescription dose was consistent between methods with 16/20 patients showing differences < 1%. 4DREAL showed the highest target coverage (99.8 ± 0.6%, p < 0.001), while no differences were observed between 3DREM and 4DREM (99.3 ± 1.3% and 99.4 ± 1.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that intra-thoracic tumours can be adequately treated with IMPT in free breathing for target motion amplitudes up to 17 mm employing any of the accumulation methods. Anatomical changes, setup and range errors demonstrated a more severe impact on target coverage than motion in these patients treated with fractionated proton radiotherapy.

Single-institution clinical experience using robust intensity modulated proton therapy in chordoma and chondrosarcoma of the mobile spine and sacrum: Feasibility and need for plan adaptation

BACKGROUND

Due to its specific physical characteristics, proton irradiation is especially suited for irradiation of chordomas and chondrosarcoma in the axial skeleton. Robust plan optimization renders the proton beam therapy more predictable upon individual setup errors. Reported experience with the planning and delivery of robustly optimized plans in chordoma and chondrosarcoma of the mobile spine and sacrum, is limited. In this study, we report on the clinical use of robustly optimized, intensity modulated proton beam therapy in these patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patient, treatment and acute toxicity data of all patients with chordoma and chondrosarcoma of the mobile spine and sacrum, treated between 1 April 2019 and 1 April 2020 at our institute. Anatomy changes during treatment were evaluated by weekly cone-beam CTs (CBCT), supplemented by scheduled control-CTs or ad-hoc control-CTs. Acute toxicity was scored weekly during treatment and at 3 months after therapy according to CTCAE 4.0.

RESULTS

17 chordoma and 3 chondrosarcoma patients were included. Coverage of the high dose clinical target volume was 99.8% (range 56.1-100%) in the nominal and 80.9% (range 14.3-99.6%) in the voxel-wise minimum dose distribution. Treatment plan adaptation was needed in 5 out of 22 (22.7%) plans. Reasons for plan adaptation were either reduced tumor coverage or increased dose to the OAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Robustly optimized intensity modulated proton beam therapy for chordoma and chondrosarcoma of the mobile spine is feasible. Plan adaptations due to anatomical changes were required in approximately 23 percent of treatment courses.

Clinical suitability of deep learning based synthetic CTs for adaptive proton therapy of lung cancer

Purpose

Adaptive proton therapy (APT) of lung cancer patients requires frequent volumetric imaging of diagnostic quality. Cone‐beam CT (CBCT) can provide these daily images, but x‐ray scattering limits CBCT‐image quality and hampers dose calculation accuracy. The purpose of this study was to generate CBCT‐based synthetic CTs using a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) and investigate image quality and clinical suitability for proton dose calculations in lung cancer patients.

Methods

A dataset of 33 thoracic cancer patients, containing CBCTs, same‐day repeat CTs (rCT), planning‐CTs (pCTs), and clinical proton treatment plans, was used to train and evaluate a DCNN with and without a pCT‐based correction method. Mean absolute error (MAE), mean error (ME), peak signal‐to‐noise ratio, and structural similarity were used to quantify image quality. The evaluation of clinical suitability was based on recalculation of clinical proton treatment plans. Gamma pass ratios, mean dose to target volumes and organs at risk, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) were calculated. Furthermore, proton radiography simulations were performed to assess the HU‐accuracy of sCTs in terms of range errors.

Results

On average, sCTs without correction resulted in a MAE of 34 ± 6 HU and ME of 4 ± 8 HU. The correction reduced the MAE to 31 ± 4HU (ME to 2 ± 4HU). Average 3%/3 mm gamma pass ratios increased from 93.7% to 96.8%, when the correction was applied. The patient specific correction reduced mean proton range errors from 1.5 to 1.1 mm. Relative mean target dose differences between sCTs and rCT were below ± 0.5% for all patients and both synthetic CTs (with/without correction). NTCP values showed high agreement between sCTs and rCT (<2%).

Conclusion

CBCT‐based sCTs can enable accurate proton dose calculations for APT of lung cancer patients. The patient specific correction method increased the image quality and dosimetric accuracy but had only a limited influence on clinically relevant parameters.

Diaphragm-Based Position Verification to Improve Daily Target Dose Coverage in Proton and Photon Radiation Therapy Treatment of Distal Esophageal Cancer

PURPOSE

In modern conformal radiation therapy of distal esophageal cancer, target coverage can be affected by variations in the diaphragm position. We investigated if daily position verification (PV) extended by a diaphragm position correction would optimize target dose coverage for esophageal cancer treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

For 15 esophageal cancer patients, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were computed. Displacements of the target volume were correlated with diaphragm displacements using repeated 4-dimensional computed tomography images to determine the correction needed to account for diaphragm variations. Afterwards, target coverage was evaluated for 3 PV approaches based on: (1) bony anatomy (PV_B), (2) bony anatomy corrected for the diaphragm position (PV_BD) and (3) target volume (PV_T).

RESULTS

The cranial-caudal mean target displacement was congruent with almost half of the diaphragm displacement (y = 0.459x), which was used for the diaphragm correction in PV_BD. Target dose coverage using PV_B was adequate for most patients with diaphragm displacements up till 10 mm (≥94% of the dose in 98% of the volume [D_98%]). For larger displacements, the target coverage was better maintained by PV_T and PV_BD. Overall, PV_BD accounted best for target displacements, especially in combination with tissue density variations (D_98%: IMPT 94% ± 5%, VMAT 96% ± 5%). Diaphragm displacements of more than 10 mm were observed in 22% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PV_B was sufficient to achieve adequate target dose coverage in case of small deviations in diaphragm position. However, large deviations of the diaphragm were best mitigated by PV_BD. To detect the cases where target dose coverage could be compromised due to diaphragm position variations, we recommend monitoring of the diaphragm position before treatment through online imaging.

An Institutional Audit of Maximum Heart Dose in Patients Treated With Palliative Radiotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

Recent studies suggested that high unintended radiation doses to the heart may reduce survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) irradiated with curative intent. In the palliative setting, limited information is available. Therefore, we analyzed a single-institution cohort of 165 patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients in this retrospective study received palliative (chemo)radiotherapy (at least 30 Gy). Typical radiation doses were 10-13 fractions of 3 Gy and 15 fractions of 2.8 Gy. Heart dose constraints were not employed during treatment planning. The maximum dose to 1 cc of the heart was registered and converted into the equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2).

RESULTS

The median heart dose (maximum to 1 cc) was 26 Gy (range=11-42 Gy). This dose corresponded to 28-108% of the prescription dose. After conversion into EQD2, the median maximum heart dose to 1 cc was 26 Gy, range=10-58 Gy). Neither higher T-stage nor higher N-stage predicted for higher maximum heart EQD2. The maximum heart EQD2 was not associated with overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The current practice of focusing on sparing of lungs and esophagus appears acceptable in the context of palliative regimes. To further strengthen this strategy, additional studies looking at cardiac substructures and other dosimetric variables such as mean dose are warranted.

Physics of Particle Beam and Hypofractionated Beam Delivery in NSCLC

The dosimetric advantages of particle therapy lead to significantly reduced integral dose to normal tissues, making it an attractive treatment option for body sites such as the thorax. With reduced normal tissue dose comes the potential for dose escalation, toxicity reduction, or hypofractionation. While proton and heavy ion therapy have been used extensively for NSCLC, there are challenges in planning and delivery compared with X-ray-based radiation therapy. Particularly, range uncertainties compounded by breathing motion have to be considered. This article summarizes the current state of particle therapy for NSCLC with a specific focus on the impact of dosimetric uncertainties in planning and delivery.

Evaluation of continuous beam rescanning versus pulsed beam in pencil beam scanned proton therapy for lung tumours

The treatment of moving targets with pencil beam scanned proton therapy (PBS-PT) may rely on rescanning strategies to smooth out motion induced dosimetric disturbances. PBS-PT machines, such as Proteus®Plus (PPlus) and Proteus®One (POne), deliver a continuous or a pulsed beam, respectively. In PPlus, scaled (or no) rescanning can be applied, while POne implies intrinsic 'rescanning' due to its pulsed delivery. We investigated the efficacy of these PBS-PT delivery types for the treatment of lung tumours. In general, clinically acceptable plans were achieved, and PPlus and POne showed similar effectiveness.

Inter-fraction motion robustness and organ sparing potential of proton therapy for cervical cancer

PURPOSE

Large-field photon radiotherapy is current standard in the treatment of cervical cancer patients. However, with the increasing availability of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy (PBS-PT) and robust treatment planning techniques, protons may have significant advantages for cervical cancer patients in the reduction of toxicity. In this study, PBS-PT and photon Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) were compared, examining target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) dose, taking inter- and intra-fraction motion into account.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve cervical cancer patients were included in this in-silico planning study. In all cases, a planning CT scan, five weekly repeat CT scans (reCTs) and an additional reCT 10 min after the first reCT were available. Two-arc VMAT and robustly optimised two- and four-field (2F and 4F) PBS-PT plans were robustly evaluated on planCTs and reCTs using set-up and range uncertainty. Nominal OAR doses and voxel-wise minimum target coverage robustness were compared.

RESULTS

Average voxel-wise minimum accumulated doses for pelvic target structures over all patients were adequate for both photon and proton treatment techniques (D98 > 95%, [91.7-99.3%]). Average accumulated dose of the para-aortic region was lower than the required 95%, D98 > 94.4% [91.1-98.2%]. With PBS-PT 4F, dose to all OARs was significantly lower than with VMAT. Major differences were observed for mean bowel bag V_15Gy: 60% [39-70%] for VMAT vs 30% [10-52%] and 32% [9-54%] for PBS-PT 2F and 4F and for mean bone marrow V_10Gy: 88% [82-97%] for VMAT vs 66% [60-73%] and 67% [60-75%] for PBS-PT 2F and 4F.

CONCLUSION

Robustly optimised PBS-PT for cervical cancer patients shows equivalent target robustness against inter- and intra-fraction variability compared to VMAT, and offers significantly better OAR sparing.