Proton vs. photon radiotherapy for MR-guided dose escalation of intraprostatic lesions

The impact of motion on onboard MRI-guided pencil beam scanned proton therapy treatments

Objective.Online magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance could be especially beneficial for pencil beam scanned (PBS) proton therapy of tumours affected by respiratory motion. For the first time to our knowledge, we investigate the dosimetric impact of respiratory motion on MRI-guided proton therapy compared to the scenario without magnetic field.Approach.A previously developed analytical proton dose calculation algorithm accounting for perpendicular magnetic fields was extended to enable 4D dose calculations. For two geometrical phantoms and three liver and two lung patient cases, static treatment plans were optimised with and without magnetic field (0, 0.5 and 1.5 T). Furthermore, plans were optimised using gantry angle corrections (0.5 T +5° and 1.5 T +15°) to reproduce similar beam trajectories compared to the 0 T reference plans. The effect of motion was then considered using 4D dose calculations without any motion mitigation and simulating 8-times volumetric rescanning, with motion for the patient cases provided by 4DCT(MRI) data sets. Each 4D dose calculation was performed for different starting phases and the CTV dose coverageV95%and homogeneityD5%-D95%were analysed.Main results.For the geometrical phantoms with rigid motion perpendicular to the beam and parallel to the magnetic field, a comparable dosimetric effect was observed independent of the magnetic field. Also for the five 4DCT(MRI) cases, the influence of motion was comparable for all magnetic field strengths with and without gantry angle correction. On average, the motion-induced decrease in CTVV95%from the static plan was 17.0% and 18.9% for 1.5 T and 0.5 T, respectively, and 19.9% without magnetic field.Significance.For the first time, this study investigates the combined impact of magnetic fields and respiratory motion on MR-guided proton therapy. The comparable dosimetric effects irrespective of magnetic field strength indicate that the effects of motion for future MR-guided proton therapy may not be worse than for conventional PBS proton therapy.

Proton versus photon therapy for high-risk prostate cancer with dose escalation of dominant intraprostatic lesions: a preliminary planning study

Background and purpose

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of safe-dose escalation to dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) and assess the clinical impact using dose-volume (DV) and biological metrics in photon and proton therapy. Biological parameters defined as late grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) derived from planned (D P) and accumulated dose (D A) were utilized.

Materials and methods

In total, 10 patients with high-risk prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI-defined DILs were investigated. Each patient had two plans with a focal boost to the DILs using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Plans were optimized to obtain DIL coverage while respecting the mandatory organ-at-risk constraints. For the planning evaluation, DV metrics, tumor control probability (TCP) for the DILs and whole prostate excluding the DILs (prostate-DILs), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the rectum and bladder were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyzing TCP and NTCP data.

Results

IMPT achieved a higher Dmean for the DILs compared to VMAT (IMPT: 68.1 GyRBE vs. VMAT: 66.6 Gy, p < 0.05). Intermediate-high rectal and bladder doses were lower for IMPT (p < 0.05), while the high-dose region (V60 Gy) remained comparable. IMPT-TCP for prostate-DIL were higher compared to VMAT (IMPT: 86%; α/β = 3, 94.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 84.7%; α/β = 3, 93.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Likewise, IMPT obtained a moderately higher DIL TCP (IMPT: 97%; α/β = 3, 99.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 95.9%; α/β = 3, 98.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Rectal D A-NTCP displayed the highest GI toxicity risk at 5.6%, and IMPT has a lower GI toxicity risk compared to VMAT-predicted Quantec-NTCP (p < 0.05). Bladder D P-NTCP projected a higher GU toxicity than D A-NTCP, with VMAT having the highest risk (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dose escalation using IMPT is able to achieve a high TCP for the DILs, with the lowest rectal and bladder DV doses at the intermediate-high-dose range. The reduction in physical dose was translated into a lower NTCP (p < 0.05) for the bladder, although rectal toxicity remained equivalent.

MRI-Based Radiotherapy Planning to Reduce Rectal Dose in Excess of Tolerance

Materials and Methods

This prospective single-arm study enrolled 15 men treated with IG-IMRT for localized prostate cancer. All participants received a dedicated 3 Tesla MRI examination of the prostate in addition to a pelvic CT examination for treatment planning. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with a prescription dose of 79.2 Gy were designed using identical constraints based on CT- and MRI-defined consensus volumes. The volume of rectum exposed to 70 Gy or more was compared using the Wilcoxon paired signed rank test.

Results

For CT-based treatment plans, the median volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy or more was 9.3 cubic centimeters (cc) (IQR 7.0 to 10.2) compared with 4.9 cc (IQR 4.1 to 7.8) for MRI-based plans. This resulted in a median volume reduction of 2.1 cc (IQR 0.5 to 5.3, P < .001).

Conclusions

Using MRI to plan prostate IG-IMRT to a dose of 79.2 Gy reduces the volume of rectum receiving radiation dose in excess of tolerance (70 Gy or more) and should be considered in men who are at high risk for late rectal toxicity and are not good candidates for other rectal sparing techniques such as hydrogel spacer. This trial is registered with NCT02470910.