Benchmarking a commercial proton therapy solution: The Paul Scherrer Institut experience

Simulation study using the spots deletion technique in spot scanning proton beam therapy for prostate cancers

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects on the dose distribution and beam delivery time in spot scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) incorporating the spot deletion technique. A spot scanning plan was created for 30 patients with prostate cancer. The plan was then modified via two processes: Spots with lower weighting depositions were deleted (process A) and spots that were distant from the clinical target volume (CTV) were deleted (process B). The dose distribution to the organs at risk (OAR), the expanded CTV (exCTV), which was defined by a uniform expansion of the CTV by a radius of 5 mm, and the beam delivery time were compared among initial and modified plans. The V_{50Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)]} to the rectum and bladder, and V_{60 Gy(RBE)} to the urethral bulb, inhomogeneity index (INH) of the exCTV showed a difference (P=1.1x10^-14, P=6.4x10^-14, P=2.7x10^-7, P=3.2x10^-17), although only changes by process B were significant. Modified plan by process B showed the V_{50 Gy(RBE)} to the rectum and bladder decreased by -2.4±1.6 and -2.3±1.4%, and the V_{60 Gy (RBE)} to the urethral bulb decreased by -15.9±19.4%. The INH of the exCTV increased by 0.05±0.03%. On the other hand, modification of the initial plan by process A did not affect the dose of the OAR, exCTV or beam delivery time. In spot scanning PBT, modification of the initial radiotherapy plan by systemic deletion of spots distant from the CTV could result in a dose reduction to the OAR.

Dose distribution effects of spot-scanning proton beam therapy equipped with a multi-leaf collimator for pediatric brain tumors

The present study simulated the effect of spot-scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) performed using a device equipped with a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) to calculate the dose distribution. Simulation studies using 18 pediatric patients with brain tumors in the posterior fossa were performed. Treatment plans were created for the MLC at different stages: Fully open (initial plan), fully closed to allow an irradiated area extending to 15 mm from the clinical target volume (CTV) (15-mm plan), or closing only the leaves where an organ at risk (OAR) overlapped with a border at 10 or 5 mm from the CTV (10- and 5-mm plans, respectively). The mean dose values for the brainstem, cervical cord, brain and cochlea in all MLC closure plans decreased as the MLC was closed (P=9.9×10⁻¹⁰, P=1.3×10⁻¹⁷, P=2.1×10⁻¹⁶ and P=2.0×10⁻⁵, respectively). The maximum dose (D_max) values of the cervical cord and cochlea in all MLC closure plans were also decreased as the MLC was closed (P=3.0×10⁻⁴ and P=1.1×10⁻⁵, respectively). The dose to the CTV was almost unchanged. In 10 patients, the D_max of the brain in all MLC-closure plans was higher than that of the initial plan, but the maximum increase was only 0.8 gray relative biological effectiveness [Gy(RBE)]. In conclusion, the existing MLC installed in the treatment device can be used to decrease the OAR dose significantly using spot-scanning PBT without a large capital investment. The dose from the scattered particles was small.

Shortening delivery times for intensity-modulated proton therapy by reducing the number of proton spots: an experimental verification

Delivery times of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can be shortened by reducing the number of spots in the treatment plan, but this may affect clinical plan delivery. Here, we assess the experimental deliverability, accuracy and time reduction of spot-reduced treatment planning for a clinical case, as well as its robustness. For a single head-and-neck cancer patient, a spot-reduced plan was generated and compared with the conventional clinical plan. The number of proton spots was reduced using the iterative 'pencil beam resampling' technique. This involves repeated inverse optimization, while adding in each iteration a small sample of randomly selected spots and subsequently excluding low-weighted spots until plan quality deteriorates. Field setup was identical for both plans and comparable dosimetric quality was a prerequisite. Both IMPT plans were delivered on PSI Gantry 2 and measured in water, while delivery log-files were used to extract delivery times and reconstruct the delivered dose via Monte-Carlo dose calculations. In addition, robustness simulations were performed to assess sensitivity to machine inaccuracies and errors in patient setup and proton range. The number of spots was reduced by 96% (from 33 855 to 1510 in total) without compromising plan quality. The spot-reduced plan was deliverable on our gantry in standard clinical mode and resulted in average delivery times per field being shortened by 46% (from 51.2 to 27.6 s). For both plans, differences between measured and calculated dose were within clinical tolerance for patient-specific verifications and Monte-Carlo dose reconstructions were in accordance with clinical experience. The spot-reduced plan was slightly more sensitive to machine inaccuracies, but more robust against setup and range errors. In conclusion, for an example head-and-neck case, spot-reduced IMPT planning provided a deliverable treatment plan and enabled considerable shortening of the delivery time (∼50%) without compromising plan quality or delivery accuracy, and without substantially affecting robustness.