Patient Breathing Motion and Delivery Specifics Influencing the Robustness of a Proton Pancreas Irradiation

Robustness evaluation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning: A systematic review

Compared to conventional radiotherapy using X-rays, proton therapy, in principle, allows better conformity of the dose distribution to target volumes, at the cost of greater sensitivity to physical, anatomical, and positioning uncertainties. Robust planning, both in terms of plan optimization and evaluation, has gained high visibility in publications on the subject and is part of clinical practice in many centers. However, there is currently no consensus on the methods and parameters to be used for robust optimization or robustness evaluation. We propose to overcome this deficiency by following the modified Delphi consensus method. This method first requires a systematic review of the literature. We performed this review using the PubMed and Web Of Science databases, via two different experts. Potential conflicts were resolved by a third expert. We then explored the different methods before focusing on clinical studies that evaluate robustness on a significant number of patients. Many robustness assessment methods are proposed in the literature. Some are more successful than others and their implementation varies between centers. Moreover, they are not all statistically or mathematically equivalent. The most sophisticated and rigorous methods have seen more limited application due to the difficulty of their implementation and their lack of widespread availability.

Comparing different boost concepts and beam configurations for proton therapy of pancreatic cancer

Background and Purpose

Interfractional geometrical and anatomical variations impact the accuracy of proton therapy for pancreatic cancer. This study investigated field-in-field (FIF) and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) concepts for scanned proton therapy treatment with different beam configurations.

Materials and Methods

Robustly optimized treatment plans for fifteen patients were generated using FIF and SIB techniques with two, three, and four beams. The prescribed dose in 20 fractions was 60 Gy(RBE) for the internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) and 46 Gy(RBE) for the internal clinical target volume. Verification computed tomography (vCT) scans was performed on treatment days 1, 7, and 16. Initial treatment plans were recalculated on the rigidly registered vCTs. V100% and D95% for targets and D2cm3 for the stomach and duodenum were evaluated. Robustness evaluations (range uncertainty of 3.5 %) were performed to evaluate the stomach and duodenum dose-volume parameters.

Results

For all techniques, IGTV V100% and D95% decreased significantly when recalculating the dose on vCTs (p < 0.001). The median IGTV V100% and D95% over all vCTs ranged from 74.2 % to 90.2 % and 58.8 Gy(RBE) to 59.4 Gy(RBE), respectively. The FIF with two and three beams, and SIB with two beams maintained the highest IGTV V100% and D95%. In robustness evaluations, the ΔD2cm3 of stomach was highest in two beams plans, while the ΔD2cm3 of duodenum was highest in four beams plans, for both concepts.

Conclusion

Target coverage decreased when recalculating on CTs at different time for both concepts. The FIF with three beams maintained the highest IGTV coverage while sparing normal organs the most.

A review of the clinical introduction of 4D particle therapy research concepts

Background and purpose

Many 4D particle therapy research concepts have been recently translated into clinics, however, remaining substantial differences depend on the indication and institute-related aspects. This work aims to summarise current state-of-the-art 4D particle therapy technology and outline a roadmap for future research and developments.

Material and methods

This review focused on the clinical implementation of 4D approaches for imaging, treatment planning, delivery and evaluation based on the 2021 and 2022 4D Treatment Workshops for Particle Therapy as well as a review of the most recent surveys, guidelines and scientific papers dedicated to this topic.

Results

Available technological capabilities for motion surveillance and compensation determined the course of each 4D particle treatment. 4D motion management, delivery techniques and strategies including imaging were diverse and depended on many factors. These included aspects of motion amplitude, tumour location, as well as accelerator technology driving the necessity of centre-specific dosimetric validation. Novel methodologies for X-ray based image processing and MRI for real-time tumour tracking and motion management were shown to have a large potential for online and offline adaptation schemes compensating for potential anatomical changes over the treatment course. The latest research developments were dominated by particle imaging, artificial intelligence methods and FLASH adding another level of complexity but also opportunities in the context of 4D treatments.

Conclusion

This review showed that the rapid technological advances in radiation oncology together with the available intrafractional motion management and adaptive strategies paved the way towards clinical implementation.

A phantom to simulate organ motion and its effect on dose distribution in carbon ion therapy for pancreatic cancer

Objective. Carbon ion radiotherapy is a promising radiation technique for malignancies like pancreatic cancer. However, organs' motion imposes challenges for achieving homogeneous dose delivery. In this study, an anthropomorphicPancreasPhantom forIon-beamTherapy (PPIeT) was developed to simulate breathing and gastrointestinal motion during radiotherapy.Approach. The developed phantom contains a pancreas, two kidneys, a duodenum, a spine and a spinal cord. The shell of the organs was 3D printed and filled with agarose-based mixtures. Hounsfield Units (HU) of PPIeTs' organs were measured by CT. The pancreas motion amplitude in cranial-caudal (CC) direction was evaluated from patients' 4D CT data. Motions within the obtained range were simulated and analyzed in PPIeT using MRI. Additionally, GI motion was mimicked by changing the volume of the duodenum and quantified by MRI. A patient-like treatment plan was calculated for carbon ions, and the phantom was irradiated in a static and moving condition. Dose measurements in the organs were performed using an ionization chamber and dosimetric films.Main results. PPIeT presented tissue equivalent HU and reproducible breathing-induced CC displacements of the pancreas between (3.98 ± 0.36) mm and a maximum of (18.19 ± 0.44) mm. The observed maximum change in distance of (14.28 ± 0.12) mm between pancreas and duodenum was consistent with findings in patients. Carbon ion irradiation revealed homogenous coverage of the virtual tumor at the pancreas in static condition with a 1% deviation from the treatment plan. Instead, the dose delivery during motion with the maximum amplitude yielded an underdosage of 21% at the target and an increased uncertainty by two orders of magnitude.Significance. A dedicated phantom was designed and developed for breathing motion assessment of dose deposition during carbon ion radiotherapy. PPIeT is a unique tool for dose verification in the pancreas and its organs at risk during end-to-end tests.

Parameter based 4D dose calculations for proton therapy

Background and purpose Retrospective log file-based analysis provides the actual dose delivered based on the patient's breathing and the daily beam-delivery dynamics. To predict the motion sensitivity of the treatment plan on a patient-specific basis before treatment start a prospective tool is required. Such a parameter-based tool has been investigated with the aim to be used in clinical routine. Materials and Methods 4D dose calculations (4DDC) were performed for seven cancer patients with small breathing motion treated with scanned pulsed proton beams. Validation of the parameter-based 4DDC (p-4DDC) method was performed with an anthropomorphic phantom and patient data employing measurements and a log file-based 4DDC tool. The dose volume histogram parameters (Dx%) were investigated for the target and the organs at risk, compared to static and the file-based approach. Results The difference between the measured and the p-4DDC dose was within the deviation of the measurements. The maximum deviation was 0.4Gy. For the planning target volume D98% varied up to 15% compared to the static scenario, while the results from the log file and p-4DDC agreed within 2%. For the liver patients, D33%liver deviated up to 35% compared to static and 10% comparing the two 4DDC tools, while for the pancreas patients the D1%stomach varied up to 45% and 11%, respectively. Conclusion The results showed that p-4DDC could be used prospectively. The next step will be the clinical implementation of the p-4DDC tool, which can support a decision to either adapt the treatment plan or apply motion mitigation strategies.