Potential Therapeutic Improvements in Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy with LETd Optimization and Disease-Specific RBE Models

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the feasibility of improving prostate cancer patient outcomes with PBS proton LETd optimization.

METHODS

SFO, IPT-SIB, and LET-optimized plans were created for 12 patients, and generalized-tissue and disease-specific LET-dependent RBE models were applied. The mean LETd in several structures was determined and used to calculate mean RBEs. LETd- and dose-volume histograms (LVHs/DVHs) are shown. TODRs were defined based on clinical dose goals and compared between plans. The impact of robust perturbations on LETd, TODRs, and DVH spread was evaluated.

RESULTS

LETd optimization achieved statistically significant increased target volume LETd of ~4 keV/µm compared to SFO and IPT-SIB LETd of ~2 keV/µm while mitigating OAR LETd increases. A disease-specific RBE model predicted target volume RBEs > 1.5 for LET-optimized plans, up to 18% higher than for SFO plans. LET-optimized target LVHs/DVHs showed a large increase not present in OARs. All RBE models showed a statistically significant increase in TODRs from SFO to IPT-SIB to LET-optimized plans. RBE = 1.1 does not accurately represent TODRs when using LETd optimization. Robust evaluations demonstrated a trade-off between increased mean target LETd and decreased DVH spread.

CONCLUSION

The demonstration of improved TODRs provided via LETd optimization shows potential for improved patient outcomes.

Bone marrow sparing in prostate cancer patients treated with Post-operative pelvic nodal radiotherapy - A proton versus photon comparison

PURPOSE

Extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes (PLNRT) improves oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). However, a larger treatment volume increases the extent of bone marrow (BM) exposure, which is associated with hematologic toxicity (HT). Given the potential long-term impact of BM dose in PCa, clinical studies on BM sparing (BMS) are warranted. Herein, we dosimetrically compared photon and proton plans for BMS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment plans of 20 post-operative PCa patients treated with volumetric-modulated arc photon therapy (VMAT) PLNRT were retrospectively identified. Contours were added for the whole pelvis BM (WPBM) and BM sub-volumes: lumbar-sacral (LSBM), iliac (ILBM), and lower pelvis (LPBM). Three additional plans were created: VMAT_BMS, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and IMPT_BMS. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for grade >3 hematologic toxicity (HT3+) were calculated for the WPBM volumes.

RESULTS

Compared to the original VMAT plan, mean doses to all BM sub-volumes were statistically significantly lower for VMAT_BMS, IMPT, and IMPT_BMS resulting in average NTCP percentages of 20.5 ± 5.9, 10.7 ± 4.2, 6.1 ± 2.0, and 2.5 ± 0.6, respectively. IMPT_BMS had significantly lower low dose metrics (V300cGy-V2000cGy) for WPBM and sub-volumes except for LPBM V2000cGy compared to VMAT_BMS and ILBM V20Gy compared to IMPT. In most cases, V4000cGy and V5000cGy within ILBM and LSBM were significantly higher for IMPT plans compared to VMAT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

BMS plans are achievable with VMAT and IMPT without compromising target coverage or OARs constraints. IMPT plans were overall better at reducing mean and NTCP for HT3+ as well as low dose volumes to BM. However, IMPT had larger high dose volumes within LSBM and ILBM. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical implications of these findings.

Anatomically robust proton therapy using multiple planning computed tomography scans for locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Proton therapy (PT) is sensitive towards anatomical changes that may occur during a treatment course. The aim of this study was to investigate if anatomically robust PT (ARPT) plans incorporating patient-specific target motion improved target coverage while still sparing normal tissues, when applied on locally advanced prostate cancer patients where pelvic irradiation is indicated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A planning computed tomography (CT) scan used for dose calculation and two additional CTs (acquired on different days) were used to make patient-specific targets for the ARPT plans on the eight included patients. The plans were compared to a conventional robust PT plan and a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photon plan, which were derived from the planning CT (pCT). Worst-case robust optimisation was used for all proton plans with a setup uncertainty of 5 mm and a range uncertainty of 3.5%. Target coverage (V95% and D95%) and normal tissue doses (V5-75 Gy) were evaluated on 6-8 rCTs per patient.

RESULTS

The ARPT plans improved the prostate target coverage for the most challenging patient compared to conventional robust PT plans (20% point increase for V95% and 31 Gy increase for D95%). Across the whole cohort the estimated mean value for V95% was 97% for the ARPT plans and 95% for the conventional robust PT plans. The ARPT plans had a slight, statistically insignificant increase in normal tissue doses compared to the conventional robust proton plans. Compared to VMAT, the ARPT plans significantly reduced the normal tissue doses in the low-to-intermediate dose range.

CONCLUSIONS

While both proton plans reduced the low-to-intermediate normal tissue doses compared to VMAT, ARPT plans improved the target coverage for the most challenging patient without significantly increasing the normal tissue doses compared to conventional robust PT plans.

Prediction of the output factor using machine and deep learning approach in uniform scanning proton therapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this work is to develop machine and deep learning-based models to predict output and MU based on measured patient quality assurance (QA) data in uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT).

METHODS

This study involves 4,231 patient QA measurements conducted over the last 6 years. In the current approach, output and MU are predicted by an empirical model (EM) based on patient treatment plan parameters. In this study, two MATLAB-based machine and deep learning algorithms - Gaussian process regression (GPR) and shallow neural network (SNN) - were developed. The four parameters from patient QA (range, modulation, field size, and measured output factor) were used to train these algorithms. The data were randomized with a training set containing 90% and a testing set containing remaining 10% of the data. The model performance during training was accessed using root mean square error (RMSE) and R-squared values. The trained model was used to predict output based on the three input parameters: range, modulation, and field size. The percent difference was calculated between the predicted and measured output factors. The number of data sets required to make prediction accuracy of GPR and SNN models' invariable was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The prediction accuracy of machine and deep learning algorithms is higher than the EM. The output predictions with [GPR, SNN, and EM] within ± 2% and ± 3% difference were [97.16%, 97.64%, and 92.95%] and [99.76%, 99.29%, and 97.18%], respectively. The GPR model outperformed the SNN with a smaller number of training data sets.

CONCLUSION

The GPR and SNN models outperformed the EM in terms of prediction accuracy. Machine and deep learning algorithms predicted the output factor and MU for USPT with higher predictive accuracy than EM. In our clinic, these models have been adopted as a secondary check of MU or output factors.

Proton therapy- the modality of choice for future radiation therapy management of Prostate Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Proton Therapy (PR) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer (Pca) patients. However, limited and conflicting data exists regarding its ability to result in fewer bladder and rectal toxicities compared to Photon Therapy (PT), as well as its cost efficiency and plan robustness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed to acquire eligible studies published between 2007 and 2018. Studies comparing bladder and rectal dosimetry or Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) toxicities between PR and PT, the plan robustness of PR relative to motion and its cost efficiency for Pca patients were assessed.

RESULTS

28 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. PR resulted in improved bladder and rectal dosimetry but did not manifest as improved GI/GU toxicities clinically compared to PT. PR plans were considered robust when specific corrections, techniques, positioning or immobilisation devices were applied. PR is not cost effective for intermediate risk Pca patients; however PR may be cost effective for younger or high risk Pca patients.

CONCLUSION

PR offers improved bladder and rectal dosimetry compared to PT but this does not specifically translate to improved GI/GU toxicities clinically. The robustness of PR plans is acceptable under specific conditions. PR is not cost effective for all Pca patients.

On-line dose-guidance to account for inter-fractional motion during proton therapy

Background and purpose

Proton therapy (PT) of extra-cranial tumour sites is challenged by density changes caused by inter-fractional organ motion. In this study we investigate on-line dose-guided PT (DGPT) to account inter-fractional target motion, exemplified by internal motion in the pelvis.

Materials and methods

On-line DGPT involved re-calculating dose distributions with the isocenter shifted up to 15 mm from the position corresponding to conventional soft-tissue based image-guided PT (IGPT). The method was applied to patient models with simulated prostate/seminal vesicle target motion of ±3, ±5 and ±10 mm along the three cardinal axes. Treatment plans were created using either two lateral (gantry angles of 90°/270°) or two lateral oblique fields (gantry angles of 35°/325°). Target coverage and normal tissue doses from DGPT were compared to both soft-tissue and bony anatomy based IGPT.

Results

DGPT improved the dose distributions relative to soft-tissue based IGPT for 39 of 90 simulation scenarios using lateral fields and for 50 of 90 scenarios using lateral oblique fields. The greatest benefits of DGPT were seen for large motion, e.g. a median target coverage improvement of 13% was found for 10 mm anterior motion with lateral fields. DGPT also improved the dose distribution in comparison to bony anatomy IGPT in all cases. The best strategy was often to move the fields back towards the original target position prior to the simulated target motion.

Conclusion

DGPT has the potential to better account for large inter-fractional organ motion in the pelvis than IGPT.

A biological modelling based comparison of radiotherapy plan robustness using photons vs protons for focal prostate boosting

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Focal tumour boosting is currently explored in radiotherapy of prostate cancer to increase tumour control. In this study we applied dose response models for both tumour control and normal tissue complications to explore the benefit of proton therapy (PT) combined with focal tumour boosting, also when accounting for inter-fractional motion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT scans of seven patients fused with MRI-based index volumes were used. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created for each patient; one with conventional dose (77 Gy) to the entire prostate, and one with an additional integrated boost (total dose of 95 Gy) to the index lesion. Two corresponding intensity modulated PT (IMPT) plans were created using two lateral opposing spot scanning beams. All plans were evaluated using an MRI-based tumour control probability (TCP) model and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for the rectum and bladder. Plan robustness was evaluated using dose re-calculations on repeat cone-beam CTs.

RESULTS

Across all plans, median TCP increased from 86% (range: 59-98%) without boost to 97% (range: 96-99%) with boost. IMPT plans had lower rectum NTCPs (e.g. 3% vs. 4% for boost plans) but higher bladder NTCPs (20% vs. 18% for boost plans), yet only the bladder NTCPs remained different in the cone beam CT-based re-calculations.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal tumour boosting can be delivered with either VMAT or protons, and increases the predicted TCP. The small benefit of IMPT when assessing the planned dose distributions was lost when accounting for inter-fractional motion.

A retrospective study of late adverse events in proton beam therapy for prostate cancer

The efficacy and safety of proton beam therapy (PBT) were retrospectively evaluated in 111 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent definitive PBT between 2008 and 2012. Following exclusion of 18 patients due to treatment suspension, loss to follow-up, and histology, the analysis included 93 patients with a median age of 68 years (range, 49–81 years). A total of 7, 32 and 54 prostate cancer patients were classified as low-, intermediate- and high-risk, respectively, as follows: High-risk, T≥3a or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥20 ng/ml or Gleason Score ≥8; low-risk, T ≤2b and PSA≤10 ng/ml and Gleason Score=6; intermediate-risk, all other combinations. The median initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 9.75 ng/ml (range, 1.4–100 ng/ml) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range, 6–10). Patients with low-risk disease received 74 GyE (relative biological effectiveness=1.1) in 37 fractions, and those at intermediate or higher risk received 78 GyE in 39 fractions. Complete androgen blockade (CAB) therapy was performed from 6 months prior to PBT for patients with intermediate- or high-risk disease. CAB was continued during PBT and then terminated at the end of PBT for intermediate-risk patients. Patients at high risk continued CAB for 3 years. No combination therapy was used for low-risk patients. All the patients were followed up for >2 years after PBT, and all but one were PSA failure-free. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.0 was used to evaluate late adverse events. One patient developed grade 3 non-infectious cystitis and hematuria. Grade 2 urinary frequency was observed in 1 patient, and grade 2 rectal bleeding occurred in 4 patients. Of the 4 patients with grade 2 rectal bleeding, 2 received anticoagulant therapy, but none had diabetes mellitus or another high-risk comorbidity. The median time to occurrence of an adverse event of grade ≥2 was 14 months (range, 3–41 months). Therefore, the present retrospective study revealed that PBT at 78 GyE/39 Fr was well-tolerated and achieved good tumor control in patients with prostate cancer.

Andersen A, Casares-Magaz O, Petersen JBB, Bentzen L, Thörnqvist S, Muren LP. Evaluating the influence of organ motion during photon vs. proton therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer using biological models

BACKGROUND

Proton therapy (PT) may have a normal tissue sparing potential when co-irradiating pelvic lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, but may also be more sensitive towards organ motion in the pelvis. Building upon a previous study identifying motion-robust proton beam angles for pelvic irradiation, we aimed to evaluate the influence of organ motion for PT using biological models, and to compare this with contemporary photon-based RT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight locally advanced prostate cancer patients with a planning CT (pCT) and 8-9 repeated CT scans (rCTs) were included. Two PT plans were created, one using two lateral opposed beams at gantry angles of 90°/270° and the other using two lateral oblique beams at 35°/325°; these were compared with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. All plans were optimised on the pCT and subsequently re-calculated on each rCT (following rigid alignment on the prostate). Dose distributions in organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using mean dose, generalized equivalent uniform doses (gEUDs) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs), while mean dose and the volume receiving 98% of the dose (V98%) were used for the targets.

RESULTS

PT significantly reduced the mean dose to the OARs and a correlation was seen in the pCTs between the prostate PTV overlapping the relevant OAR and OAR NTCPs, as was also the case for the VMAT plans. The best prostate target coverage across the rCTs for the IMPT plans were seen with two lateral opposed beams, although a poor coverage of the lymph node target was apparent based on V98% compared to the VMAT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

PT reduced the mean dose to normal tissues in the irradiation of pelvic lymph nodes and a strong association between the volume overlap and NTCPs in the pCTs were found.

Dosimetric and radiobiological impact of intensity modulated proton therapy and RapidArc planning for high-risk prostate cancer with seminal vesicles

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric and radiobiological impact of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and RapidArc planning for high-risk prostate cancer with seminal vesicles.

METHODS

Ten high-risk prostate cancer cases were included in this retrospective study. For each case, IMPT plans were generated using multiple field optimisation (MFO) technique (two fields) with XiO treatment planning system (TPS), whereas RapidArc plans were generated using double-arc technique (two full arcs) with Eclipse TPS. IMPT and RapidArc plans were optimised for a total prescription dose of 79.2 Gy (relative biological effectiveness (RBE)) and 79.2 Gy, respectively, using identical dose-volume constraints. IMPT and RapidArc plans were then normalised such that at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose.

RESULTS

The mean and maximum PTV doses were comparable in IMPT plans (80.1 ± 0.3 Gy (RBE) and 82.6 ± 1.0 Gy (RBE) respectively) and RapidArc plans (80.3 ± 0.3 Gy and 82.8 ± 0.6 Gy respectively) with P = 0.088 and P = 0.499 respectively. The mean doses of the rectum and bladder were found to be significantly lower in IMPT plans (16.9 ± 5.8 Gy (RBE) and 17.5 ± 5.4 Gy (RBE) respectively) when compared to RapidArc plans (41.9 ± 5.7 Gy and 32.5 ± 7.8 Gy respectively) with P < 0.000 and P < 0.000 respectively. For the rectum, IMPT produced lower V₃₀ (21.0 ± 9.6% vs. 68.5 ± 10.0%; P < 0.000), V₅₀ (14.3 ± 5.8% vs. 45.0 ± 10.0%; P < 0.000) and V₇₀ (6.9 ± 3.4% vs. 12.8 ± 3.6%; P < 0.000) compared to RapidArc. For the bladder, IMPT produced lower V₃₀ (23.2 ± 7.0% vs. 50.9 ± 15.6%; P < 0.000) and V₅₀ (16.6 ± 5.4% vs. 25.1 ± 9.6%; P = 0.001), but similar V₇₀ (9.7 ± 3.5% vs. 10.5 ± 4.2%; P = 0.111) compared to RapidArc. RapidArc produced lower mean dose for both the right femoral head (19.5 ± 4.2 Gy vs. 27.4 ± 4.5 Gy (RBE); P < 0.000) and left femoral head (18.0 ± 4.3 Gy vs. 28.0 ± 5.6 Gy (RBE); P < 0.000). Both IMPT and RapidArc produced comparable bladder normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) (0.6 ± 0.2% vs. 0.5 ± 0.2%; P = 0.152). The rectal NTCP was found to be lower using IMPT (0.8 ± 0.7%) than using RapidArc (1.7 ± 0.7%) with P < 0.000.

CONCLUSION

Both IMPT and RapidArc techniques provided comparable mean and maximum PTV doses. For the rectum, IMPT produced better dosimetric results in the low-, medium- and high-dose regions and lower NTCP compared to RapidArc. For the bladder, the NTCP and dosimetric results in the high-dose region were comparable in both sets of plans, whereas IMPT produced better dosimetric results in the low- and medium-dose regions.