Assessment of robustness against setup uncertainties using probabilistic scenarios in lung cancer: a comparison of proton with photon therapy

Robustness analysis of CTV and OAR dose in clinical PBS-PT of neuro-oncological tumors: prescription-dose calibration and inter-patient variation with the Dutch proton robustness evaluation protocol

Objective. The Dutch proton robustness evaluation protocol prescribes the dose of the clinical target volume (CTV) to the voxel-wise minimum (VWmin) dose of 28 scenarios. This results in a consistent but conservative near-minimum CTV dose (D98%,CTV). In this study, we analyzed (i) the correlation between VWmin/voxel-wise maximum (VWmax) metrics and actually delivered dose to the CTV and organs at risk (OARs) under the impact of treatment errors, and (ii) the performance of the protocol before and after its calibration with adequate prescription-dose levels.Approach. Twenty-one neuro-oncological patients were included. Polynomial chaos expansion was applied to perform a probabilistic robustness evaluation using 100,000 complete fractionated treatments per patient. Patient-specific scenario distributions of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters for the CTV and OARs were determined and compared to clinical VWmin and VWmax dose metrics for different scenario subsets used in the robustness evaluation protocol.Main results. The inclusion of more geometrical scenarios leads to a significant increase of the conservativism of the protocol in terms of clinical VWmin and VWmax values for the CTV and OARs. The protocol could be calibrated using VWmin dose evaluation levels of 93.0%-92.3%, depending on the scenario subset selected. Despite this calibration of the protocol, robustness recipes for proton therapy showed remaining differences and an increased sensitivity to geometrical random errors compared to photon-based margin recipes.Significance. The Dutch proton robustness evaluation protocol, combined with the photon-based margin recipe, could be calibrated with a VWmin evaluation dose level of 92.5%. However, it shows limitations in predicting robustness in dose, especially for the near-maximum dose metrics to OARs. Consistent robustness recipes could improve proton treatment planning to calibrate residual differences from photon-based assumptions.

Dosimetric impact of systematic spot position errors in spot scanning proton therapy of head and neck tumor

Purpose

The spot position is an important beam parameter in the quality assurance of scanning proton therapy. In this study, we investigated dosimetric impact of systematic 15 spot position errors (SSPE) in spot scanning proton therapy using three types of optimization methods of head and neck tumor.

Materials and Methods

The planning simulation was performed with ± 2 mm model SSPE in the X and Y directions. Treatment plans were created using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and single-field uniform dose (SFUD). IMPT plans were created by two optimization methods: with worst-case optimization (WCO-IMPT) and without (IMPT). For clinical target volume (CTV), D95%, D50%, and D2cc were used for analysis. For organs at risk (OAR), Dmean was used to analyze the brain, cochlea, and parotid, and Dmax was used to analyze brainsetem, chiasm, optic nerve, and cord.

Results

For CTV, the variation (1 standard deviation) of D95% was ± 0.88%, 0.97% and 0.97% to WCO-IMPT, IMPT, and SFUD plan. The variation of D50% and D2cc of CTV showed <0.5% variation in all plans. The dose variation due to SSPE was larger in OAR, and worst-case optimization reduced the dose variation, especially in Dmax. The analysis results showed that SSPE has little impact on SFUD.

Conclusions

We clarified the impact of SSPE on dose distribution for three optimization methods. SFUD was shown to be a robust treatment plan for OARs, and the WCO can be used to increase robustness to SSPE in IMPT.

Evaluation of Plan Robustness Using Hybrid Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Arc Modulation Radiotherapy (VMAT) for Left-Sided Breast Cancer

Purpose: We aim to evaluate the robustness of multi-field IMRT and VMAT plans to target motion for left-sided BC radiotherapy. Methods: The 7-field hybrid IMRT (7F-H-IMRT) and 2-arc VMAT (2A-VMAT) plans were generated for ten left-sided BC patients. Shifts of 3 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm in six directions were introduced and the perturbed dose distributions were recalculated. The dose differences (∆D) of the original plan and perturbed plan corresponded to the plan robustness for the structure. Results: Higher ∆D_98%, ∆D_95%, and ∆D_mean of CTV were observed in 2A-VMAT plans, which induced higher tumor control probability reductions. A higher ∆Dmean of CTV Boost was found in 7F-H-IMRT plans despite lower ∆D_98% and ∆D_95%. Shifts in the S-I direction exerted the largest effect on CTV and CTV Boost. Regarding OARs, shifts in R, P, and I directions contributed to increasing the received dose. The 2A-VMAT plans performed better dose sparing, but had a higher robustness in a high-dose volume of the left lung and heart. The 2A-VMAT plans decreased the max dose of LAD but exhibited lower robustness. Conclusion: The 2A-VMAT plans showed higher sensitivity to position deviation. Shifts in the S-I direction exerted the largest effect for CTV and CTV Boost.

Assessment of a diaphragm override strategy for robustly optimized proton therapy planning for esophageal cancer patients

Purpose

To ensure target coverage in the treatment of esophageal cancer, a density override to the region of diaphragm motion can be applied in the optimization process. Here, we evaluate the benefit of this approach during robust optimization for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning.

Materials and methods

For 10 esophageal cancer patients, two robustly optimized IMPT plans were created either using (WDO) or not using (NDO) a diaphragm density override of 1.05 g/cm³ during plan optimization. The override was applied to the excursion of the diaphragm between exhale and inhale. Initial robustness evaluation was performed for plan acceptance (setup errors of 8 mm, range errors of ±3%), and subsequently, on all weekly repeated 4DCTs (setup errors of 2 mm, range errors of ±3%). Target coverage and hotspots were analyzed on the resulting voxel‐wise minimum (Vw_min) and voxel‐wise maximum (Vw_max) dose distributions.

Results

The nominal dose distributions were similar for both WDO and NDO plans. However, visual inspection of the Vw_max of the WDO plans showed hotspots behind the right diaphragm override region. For one patient, target coverage and hotspots improved by applying the diaphragm override. We found no differences in target coverage in the weekly evaluations between the two approaches.

Conclusion

The diaphragm override approach did not result in a clinical benefit in terms of planning and interfractional robustness. Therefore, we do not see added value in employing this approach as a default option during robust optimization for IMPT planning in esophageal cancer.

FRoG dose computation meets Monte Carlo accuracy for proton therapy dose calculation in lung

PURPOSE

To benchmark and evaluate the clinical viability of novel analytical GPU-accelerated and CPU-based Monte Carlo (MC) dose-engines for spot-scanning intensity-modulated-proton-therapy (IMPT) towards the improvement of lung cancer treatment.

METHODS

Nine patient cases were collected from the CNAO clinical experience and The Cancer Imaging Archive-4D-Lung-Database for in-silico study. All plans were optimized with 2 orthogonal beams in RayStation (RS) v.8. Forward calculations were performed with FRoG, an independent dose calculation system using a fast robust approach to the pencil beam algorithm (PBA), RS-MC (CPU for v.8) and general-purpose MC (gp-MC). Dosimetric benchmarks were acquired via irradiation of a lung-like phantom and ionization chambers for both a single-field-uniform-dose (SFUD) and IMPT plans. Dose-volume-histograms, dose-difference and γ-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

With respect to reference gp-MC, the average dose to the GTV was 1.8% and 2.3% larger for FRoG and the RS-MC treatment planning system (TPS). FRoG and RS-MC showed a local γ-passing rate of ~96% and ~93%. Phantom measurements confirmed FRoG's high accuracywith a deviation < 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose calculation performance using the GPU-accelerated analytical PBA, MC-TPS and gp-MC code were well within clinical tolerances. FRoG predictions were in good agreement with both the full gp-MC and experimental data for proton beams optimized for thoracic dose calculations. GPU-accelerated dose-engines like FRoG may alleviate current issues related to deficiencies in current commercial analytical proton beam models. The novel approach to the PBA implemented in FRoG is suitable for either clinical TPS or as an auxiliary dose-engine to support clinical activity for lung patients.