Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness

Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Facilitates the Safe Treatment of Extended Radiation Targets for Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Report from the Proton Collaborative Group Registry

Because proton beam therapy (PBT) can lower the dose of radiation to the heart, lungs, and breast, it is an established radiation modality for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Pencil beam scanning (PBS) PBT facilitates the treatment of more extensive targets. This may be especially of value for lymphoma patients who require RT to both mediastinal and axillary targets, defined here as extended target RT (ETRT), given the target distribution and need to minimize the lung, heart, and breast dose. Using the Proton Collaborative Group registry, we identified patients with HL treated with PBT to both their mediastinum and axilla, for which DICOM-RT was available. All patients were treated with PBS. To evaluate the dosimetric impact of PBS, we compared delivered PBS plans with VMAT butterfly photon plans optimized to have the same target volume coverage, when feasible. Between 2016 and 2021, twelve patients (median 26 years) received PBS ETRT (median 30.6 Gy (RBE)). Despite the large superior/inferior (SI, median 22.2 cm) and left/right (LR, median 22.8 cm) extent of the ETRT targets, all patients were treated with one isocenter except for two patients (both with SI and LR > 30 cm). Most commonly, anterior beams, with or without posterior beams, were used. Compared to photons, PBS had greater target coverage, better conformity, and lower dose heterogeneity while achieving lower doses to the lungs and heart, but not to the breast. No acute grade 3+ toxicities were reported, including pneumonitis. Proton ETRT in this small cohort was safely delivered with PBS and was associated with an improved sparing of the heart and lungs compared to VMAT.

Dosimetric and NTCP advantages of robust proton therapy over robust VMAT for Stage III NSCLC in the immunotherapy era

AIMS

To assess the robustness and to define the dosimetric and NTCP advantages of pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) compared with VMAT for unresectable Stage III non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) in the immunotherapy era.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

10 patients were re-planned with VMAT and PBSPT using: 1) ITV-based robust optimization with 0.5 cm setup uncertainties and (for PBSPT) 3.5 % range uncertainties on free-breathing CT 2) CTV-based RO including all 4DCTs anatomies. Target coverage (TC), organs at risk dose and TC robustness (TCR), set at V95%, were compared. The NTCP risk for radiation pneumonitis (RP), 24-month mortality (24MM), G2 + acute esophageal toxicity (ET), the dose to the immune system (EDIC) and the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery V15 < 10 % were registered. Wilcoxon test was used.

RESULTS

Both PBSPT methods improved TC and TCR (p < 0.01). The mean lung dose and lung V20 were lower with PBSPT (p < 0.01). Median mean heart dose reduction with PBSPT was 8 Gy (p < 0.001). PT lowered median LAD V15 (p = 0.004). ΔNTCP > 5 % with PBSPT was observed for two patients for RP and for five patients for 24 MM. ΔNTCP for ≥ G2 ET was not in favor of PBSPT for all patients. PBSPT halved median EDIC (4.9/5.1 Gy for ITV/CTV-based VMAT vs 2.3 Gy for both ITV/CTV-based PBSPT, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PBSPT is a robust approach with significant dosimetric and NTCP advantages over VMAT; the EDIC reduction could allow for a better integration with immunotherapy. A clinical benefit for a subset of NSCLC patients is expected.

Does variable RBE affect toxicity risks for mediastinal lymphoma patients? NTCP-based evaluation after proton therapy treatment

INTRODUCTION

Mediastinal lymphoma (ML) is a solid malignancy affecting young patients. Modern combined treatments allow obtaining good survival probability, together with a long life expectancy, and therefore with the need to minimize treatment-related toxicities. We quantified the expected toxicity risk for different organs and endpoints in ML patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) at our centre, accounting also for uncertainties related to variable RBE.

METHODS

Treatment plans for ten ML patients were recalculated with a TOPAS-based Monte Carlo code, thus retrieving information on LET and allowing the estimation of variable RBE. Published NTCP models were adopted to calculate the toxicity risk for hypothyroidism, heart valve defects, coronary heart disease and lung fibrosis. NTCP was calculated assuming both constant (i.e. 1.1) and variable RBE. The uncertainty associated with individual radiosensitivity was estimated by random sampling α/β values before RBE evaluation.

RESULTS

Variable RBE had a minor impact on hypothyroidism risk for 7 patients, while it led to significant increase for the remaining three (+24% risk maximum increase). Lung fibrosis was slightly affected by variable RBE, with a maximum increase of ≅ 1%. This was similar for heart valve dysfunction, with the exception of one patient showing an about 10% risk increase, which could be explained by means of large heart volume and D₁ increase.

DISCUSSION

The use of NTCP models allows for identifying those patients associated with a higher toxicity risk. For those patients, it might be worth including variable RBE in plan evaluation.

Systematic review for deep inspiration breath hold in proton therapy for mediastinal lymphoma: A PTCOG Lymphoma Subcommittee report and recommendations

PURPOSE

To systematically review all dosimetric studies investigating the impact of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) compared with free breathing (FB) in mediastinal lymphoma patients treated with proton therapy as compared to IMRT (intensity-modulated radiation therapy)-DIBH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline using the PubMed database to identify studies of mediastinal lymphoma patients with dosimetric comparisons of proton-FB and/or proton-DIBH with IMRT-DIBH. Parameters included mean heart (MHD), lung (MLD), and breast (MBD) doses, among other parameters. Case reports were excluded. Absolute differences in mean doses > 1 Gy between comparators were considered to be clinically meaningful.

RESULTS

As of April 2021, eight studies fit these criteria (n = 8), with the following comparisons: proton-FB vs IMRT-DIBH (n = 5), proton-DIBH vs proton-FB (n = 5), and proton-DIBH vs IMRT-DIBH (n = 8). When comparing proton-FB with IMRT-DIBH in 5 studies, MHD was reduced with proton-FB in 2 studies, was similar (<1 Gy difference) in 2 studies, and increased in 1 study. On the other hand, MLD and MBD were reduced with proton-FB in 3 and 4 studies, respectively. When comparing proton-DIBH with proton-FB, MHD and MLD were reduced with proton DIBH in 4 and 3 studies, respectively, while MBD remained similar. Compared with IMRT-DIBH in 8 studies, proton-DIBH reduced the MHD in 7 studies and was similar in 1 study. Furthermore, MLD and MBD were reduced with proton-DIBH in 8 and 6 studies respectively. Integral dose was similar between proton-FB and proton-DIBH, and both were substantially lower than IMRT-DIBH.

CONCLUSION

Accounting for heart, lung, breast, and integral dose, proton therapy (FB or DIBH) was superior to IMRT-DIBH. Proton-DIBH can lower dose to the lungs and heart even further compared with proton-FB, depending on disease location in the mediastinum, and organ-sparing and target coverage priorities.

Impact of Blood Parameters and Normal Tissue Dose on Treatment Outcome in Esophageal Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Radiochemotherapy

Despite technological advances, normal tissue sparing in photon beam irradiation is still challenging. Since in esophageal cancer this may inflict damage on the lungs, heart and bone marrow, possibly impacting on outcome, the aim of this study was to investigate the association of normal tissue dose and blood parameters on the survival of patients having undergone neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCTx) followed by surgery. This retrospective study included 125 patients irradiated to 40−41.4 Gy with photons or protons combined with concurrent chemotherapy. On initial and restaging 18F-FDG-PET/CT, the lungs and heart were contoured as organs at risk for which standardized uptake values (SUV) were evaluated. The mean radiation dose (Dmean) to the lungs and heart, the volume of the lungs receiving at least 20 Gy (V20Gy_lung) and various pre- and per-treatment blood parameters were included in the Cox regression analyses. Results: The median follow-up time was 19.8 months and median overall survival 37 months (95% confidence interval: 16−58.9 months). In multivariate analysis, higher radiation doses to the lungs and heart were statistically significantly associated with decreased overall survival (Dmean_lung: p < 0.001; V20Gy_lung: p < 0.002; Dmean_heart: p = 0.005). Neither the 18F-FDG-PET nor blood parameters were predictive for overall survival. In patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer treated with RCTx, the radiation dose to the heart and lungs was significantly associated with overall survival.

Treatment of ocular tumors through a novel applicator on a conventional proton pencil beam scanning beamline

Treatment of ocular tumors on dedicated scattering-based proton therapy systems is standard afforded due to sharp lateral and distal penumbras. However, most newer proton therapy centers provide pencil beam scanning treatments. In this paper, we present a pencil beam scanning (PBS)-based ocular treatment solution. The design, commissioning, and validation of an applicator mount for a conventional PBS snout to allow for ocular treatments are given. In contrast to scattering techniques, PBS-based ocular therapy allows for inverse planning, providing planners with additional flexibility to shape the radiation field, potentially sparing healthy tissues. PBS enables the use of commercial Monte Carlo algorithms resulting in accurate dose calculations in the presence of heterogeneities and fiducials. The validation consisted of small field dosimetry measurements of point doses, depth doses, and lateral profiles relevant to ocular therapy. A comparison of beam properties achieved through the applicator against published literature is presented. We successfully showed the feasibility of PBS-based ocular treatments.

Quantification of biological range uncertainties in patients treated at the Krakow proton therapy centre

BACKGROUND

Variable relative biological effectiveness (vRBE) in proton therapy might significantly modify the prediction of RBE-weighted dose delivered to a patient during proton therapy. In this study we will present a method to quantify the biological range extension of the proton beam, which results from the application of vRBE approach in RBE-weighted dose calculation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The treatment plans of 95 patients (brain and skull base patients) were used for RBE-weighted dose calculation with constant and the McNamara RBE model. For this purpose the Monte Carlo tool FRED was used. The RBE-weighted dose distributions were analysed using indices from dose-volume histograms. We used the volumes receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose (V95) to estimate the biological range extension resulting from vRBE approach.

RESULTS

The vRBE model shows higher median value of relative deposited dose and D95 in the planning target volume by around 1% for brain patients and 4% for skull base patients. The maximum doses in organs at risk calculated with vRBE was up to 14 Gy above dose limit. The mean biological range extension was greater than 0.4 cm.

DISCUSSION

Our method of estimation of biological range extension is insensitive for dose inhomogeneities and can be easily used for different proton plans with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization. Using volumes instead of dose profiles, which is the common method, is more universal. However it was tested only for IMPT plans on fields arranged around the tumor area.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting a vRBE model results in an increase in dose and an extension of the beam range, which is especially disadvantageous in cancers close to organs at risk. Our results support the need to re-optimization of proton treatment plans when considering vRBE.