A method for acquiring random range uncertainty probability distributions in proton therapy

Analysis of Performance and Failure Modes of the IROC Proton Liver Phantom

Purpose

To analyze trends in institutional performance and failure modes for the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core's (IROC's) proton liver phantom.

Materials and Methods

Results of 66 phantom irradiations from 28 institutions between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate analysis and random forest models were used to associate irradiation conditions with phantom results. Phantom results included pass/fail classification, average thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) ratio of both targets, and percentage of pixels passing gamma of both targets. The following categories were evaluated in terms of how they predicted these outcomes: irradiation year, treatment planning system (TPS), TPS algorithm, treatment machine, number of irradiations, treatment technique, motion management technique, number of isocenters, and superior-inferior extent (in cm) of the 90% TPS isodose line for primary target 1 (PTV1) and primary target 2 (PTV2). In addition, failures were categorized by failure mode.

Results

Average pass rate was approximately 52% and average TLD ratio for both targets had slightly improved. As the treatment field increased to cover the target, the pass rate statistically significantly fell. Lower pass rates were observed for Mevion machines, scattered irradiation techniques, and gating and internal target volume (ITV) motion management techniques. Overall, the accuracy of the random forest modeling of the phantom results was approximately 73% ± 14%. The most important predictor was the superior-inferior extent for both targets and irradiation year. Three failure modes dominated the failures of the phantom: (1) systematic underdosing, (2) poor localization in the superior-inferior direction, and (3) range error. Only 44% of failures have similar failure modes between the 2 targets.

Conclusion

Improvement of the proton liver phantom has been observed; however, the pass rate remains the lowest among all IROC phantoms. Through various analysis techniques, range uncertainty, motion management, and underdosing are the main culprits of failures of the proton liver phantom. Clinically, careful consideration of the influences of liver proton therapy is needed to improve phantom performance and patient outcome.

Working in a UK national proton radiotherapy facility: the therapeutic radiographer perspective

The first national UK proton beam therapy centre opened at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2018, which alongside University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH) proton beam therapy centre, is expected to treat approximately seven-hundred and fifty patients per year at service ramp up.

The aim of this editorial is to share with a wider audience the role of a Band 6 proton senior treatment radiographer working in a national NHS service and future developments of the service. Prior to the service being clinical, a range of processes were followed, including the creation of quality documents, departmental training and end-to-end testing, with the first patient receiving treatment in December 2018.

Proton senior radiographers are responsible for the delivery of safe and accurate radiotherapy and ensuring a smooth patient pathway, through a multi-collaborative team approach. Although there are key differences between proton and photon radiotherapy, the fundamental aspects, including radiation principles, governance and patient advice are the same. The training package for proton senior radiographers includes an individual local induction as part of the proton education and competency framework, which incorporates practical learning, including clinical supervision and workshops, plus audio-visual presentations and workbooks to complete.

Future developments of proton beam therapy include proton arc therapy and flash therapy, alongside educational developments, such as training the future workforce and advanced practice consultant radiographer roles. Shared learning through multi-collaboration of international proton beam therapy centres is crucial to improve care for future service users.

Pre-treatment analysis of non-rigid variations can assist robust intensity-modulated proton therapy plan selection for head and neck patients

PURPOSE

To incorporate small non-rigid variations of head and neck patients into the robust evaluation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for the selection of robust treatment plans.

METHODS

A cohort of 20 nasopharynx cancer patients with weekly kilovoltage CT (kVCT) and 15 oropharynx cancer patients with weekly cone-beam CT (CBCT) were retrospectively included. Anatomical variations between week 0/week 1 of treatment were acquired using deformable image registration (DIR) for all 35 patients and then applied to the planning CT of four patients who have kVCT scanned each week to simulate potential small non-rigid variations (sNRVs). The robust evaluations were conducted on IMPT plans with: (1) different number of beam fields from 3-field to 5-field; (2) different beam angles. The robust evaluation before treatment, including the sNRVs and setup uncertainty, referred to as sNRV+R evaluation was compared with the conventional evaluation (without sNRVs) in terms of robustness consistency with the gold standard evaluation based on weekly CT.

RESULTS

Among four patients (490 scenarios), we observed a maximum difference in the sNRV+R evaluation to the nominal dose of: 9.37% dose degradation on D₉₅ of clinical target volumes (CTVs), increase in mean dose (D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ ) of parotid 11.87 Gy, increase in max dose (D max $_{\text{max}}$ ) of brainstem 20.82 Gy. In contrast, in conventional evaluation, we observed a maximum difference to the nominal dose of: 7.58% dose degradation on D₉₅ of the CTVs, increase in parotid D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ by 4.88 Gy, increase in brainstem D max $_{\text{max}}$ by 13.5 Gy. In the measurement of the robustness ranking consistency with the gold standard evaluation, the sNRV+R evaluation was better or equal to the conventional evaluation in 77% of cases, particularly, better on spinal cord, parotid glands, and low-risk CTV.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the additional dose discrepancy that sNRVs can make. The inclusion of sNRVs can be beneficial to robust evaluation, providing information on clinical uncertainties additional to the conventional rigid isocenter shift.

DIR-based models to predict weekly anatomical changes in head and neck cancer proton therapy

Objective. We proposed two anatomical models for head and neck patients to predict anatomical changes during the course of radiotherapy.Approach. Deformable image registration was used to build two anatomical models: (1) the average model (AM) simulated systematic progressive changes across the patient cohort; (2) the refined individual model (RIM) used a patient's CT images acquired during treatment to update the prediction for each individual patient. Planning CTs and weekly CTs were used from 20 nasopharynx patients. This dataset included 15 training patients and 5 test patients. For each test patient, a spot scanning proton plan was created. Models were evaluated using CT number differences, contours, proton spot location deviations and dose distributions.Main results. If no model was used, the CT number difference between the planning CT and the repeat CT at week 6 of treatment was on average 128.9 Hounsfield Units (HU) over the test population. This can be reduced to 115.5 HU using the AM, and to 110.5 HU using the RIM3(RIM, updated at week (3). When the predicted contours from the models were used, the average mean surface distance of parotid glands can be reduced from 1.98 (no model) to 1.16 mm (AM) and 1.19 mm (RIM3) at week 6. Using the proton spot range, the average anatomical uncertainty over the test population reduced from 4.47 ± 1.23 (no model) to 2.41 ± 1.12 mm (AM), and 1.89 ± 0.96 mm (RIM3). Based on the gamma analysis, the average gamma index over the test patients was improved from 93.87 ± 2.48 % (no model) to 96.16 ± 1.84% (RIM3) at week 6.Significance. The AM and the RIM both demonstrated the ability to predict anatomical changes during the treatment. The RIM can gradually refine the prediction of anatomical changes based on the AM. The proton beam spots provided an accurate and effective way for uncertainty evaluation.

Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities

Simple Summary

Reported clinical outcomes of proton therapy (PT) for localized prostate cancer are similar to photon-based external beam radiotherapy. Apparently, the dosimetric advantages of PT have yet to be translated to clinical benefits. The suboptimal clinical outcomes of PT might be attributable to inadequate dose prescription, as indicated by the ASCENDE-RT trial. Moreover, uncertainties involved in the treatment planning and delivery processes, as well as technological limitations in PT treatment systems, may lead to discrepancies between planned doses and actual doses delivered to patients. In this article, we reviewed the current status of PT for prostate cancer and discussed different clinical implementations that could potentially improve the clinical outcome of PT for prostate cancer. Various technological advancements under which uncertainties in dose calculations can be minimized, including MRI-guided PT, dual-energy photon-counting CT and high-resolution Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems, are highlighted.

Abstract

The dosimetric advantages of proton therapy (PT) treatment plans are demonstrably superior to photon-based external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer, but the reported clinical outcomes are similar. This may be due to inadequate dose prescription, especially in high-risk disease, as indicated by the ASCENDE-RT trial. Alternatively, the lack of clinical benefits with PT may be attributable to improper dose delivery, mainly due to geometric and dosimetric uncertainties during treatment planning, as well as delivery procedures that compromise the dose conformity of treatments. Advanced high-precision PT technologies, and treatment planning and beam delivery techniques are being developed to address these uncertainties. For instance, external magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided patient setup rooms are being developed to improve the accuracy of patient positioning for treatment. In-room MRI-guided patient positioning systems are also being investigated to improve the geometric accuracy of PT. Soon, high-dose rate beam delivery systems will shorten beam delivery time to within one breath hold, minimizing the effects of organ motion and patient movements. Dual-energy photon-counting computed tomography and high-resolution Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems are available to minimize uncertainties in dose planning calculations. Advanced in-room treatment verification tools such as prompt gamma detector systems will be used to verify the depth of PT. Clinical implementation of these new technologies is expected to improve the accuracy and dose conformity of PT in the treatment of localized prostate cancers, and lead to better clinical outcomes. Improvement in dose conformity may also facilitate dose escalation, improving local control and implementation of hypofractionation treatment schemes to improve patient throughput and make PT more cost effective.