Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A dosimetric comparative study.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To compare dosimetric performance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS:A total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D-CTs. The dose-volume-histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS:Compared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax , heart Dmean , and lung V5 Gy[ RBE ] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean , but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax , lung Dmean , and V5 Gy[ RBE ] . Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered. CONCLUSIONS:Small-spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Esophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small-spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects. METHODS:35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small-spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase-averaged 4D-CT's. The dose-volume-histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose. RESULTS:In the nominal scenario, small-spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean , heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE] , liver V30Gy[RBE] , stomach V45Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean , V5Gy[RBE] , and V20Gy[RBE] , cord Dmax and D0.03cm3 , liver Dmean , heart V20Gy[RBE] , and V30Gy[RBE] , but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95% , D2cm3 , and D5% -D95% , CTVlow D95% , heart Dmean , and V40Gy[RBE] , requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small-spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered. CONCLUSIONS:Small-spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small-spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.
Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the dosimetric performances of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans generated with two different beam angle configurations (the Right-Left oblique posterior beams and the Superior-Inferior oblique posterior beams) for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma in the presence of uncertainties and interplay effect. METHODS AND MATERIALS:Twenty patients' IMPT plans were retrospectively selected, with 10 patients treated with the R-L oblique posterior beams (Group R-L) and the other 10 patients treated with the S-I oblique posterior beams (Group S-I). Patients in both groups were matched by their clinical target volumes (CTVs-high and low dose levels) and respiratory motion amplitudes. Dose-volume-histogram (DVH) indices were used to assess plan quality. DVH bandwidth was calculated to evaluate plan robustness. Interplay effect was quantified using four-dimensional (4D) dynamic dose calculation with random respiratory starting phase of each fraction. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for heart, liver, and lung was calculated, respectively, to estimate the clinical outcomes. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical comparison between the two groups. RESULTS:Compared with plans in Group R-L, plans in Group S-I resulted in significantly lower liver Dmean and lung V30Gy[RBE] with slightly higher but clinically acceptable spinal cord Dmax . Similar plan robustness was observed between the two groups. When interplay effect was considered, plans in Group S-I performed statistically better for heart Dmean and V30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean and V5Gy[RBE] , and liver Dmean , with slightly increased but clinically acceptable spinal cord Dmax . NTCP for liver was significantly better in Group S-I. CONCLUSIONS:IMPT plans in Group S-I have better sparing of liver, heart, and lungs at the slight cost of spinal cord maximum dose protection, and are more interplay-effect resilient compared to IMPT plans in Group R-L. Our study supports the routine use of the S-I oblique posterior beams for the treatments of distal esophageal carcinoma.
Project description:Purpose: Pediatric craniopharyngioma, adult base-of-skull sarcoma and chordoma cases are all regarded as priority candidates for proton therapy. In this study, a dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) was first performed. We then investigated the impact of physical and biological uncertainties. We assessed whether IMPT plans remained dosimetrically superior when such uncertainty estimates were considered, especially with regards to sparing organs at risk (OARs).Methodology: We studied 10 cases: four chondrosarcoma, two chordoma and four pediatric craniopharyngioma. VMAT and IMPT plans were created according to modality-specific protocols. For IMPT, we considered (i) variable RBE modeling using the McNamara model for different values of (?/?)x, and (ii) robustness analysis with ±3?mm set-up and 3.5% range uncertainties.Results: When comparing the VMAT and IMPT plans, the dosimetric advantages of IMPT were clear: IMPT led to reduced integral dose and, typically, improved CTV coverage given our OAR constraints. When physical robustness analysis was performed for IMPT, some uncertainty scenarios worsened the CTV coverage but not usually beyond that achieved by VMAT. Certain scenarios caused OAR constraints to be exceeded, particularly for the brainstem and optical chiasm. However, variable RBE modeling predicted even more substantial hotspots, especially for low values of (?/?)x. Variable RBE modeling often prompted dose constraints to be exceeded for critical structures.Conclusion: For base-of-skull and pediatric craniopharyngioma cases, both physical and biological robustness analyses should be considered for IMPT: these analyses can substantially affect the sparing of OARs and comparisons against VMAT. All proton RBE modeling is subject to high levels of uncertainty, but the clinical community should remain cognizant possible RBE effects. Careful clinical and imaging follow-up, plus further research on end-of-range RBE mitigation strategies such as LET optimization, should be prioritized for these cohorts of proton patients.
Project description:The clinical advantage of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may be diminished by range and patient setup uncertainties. We evaluated the effectiveness of robust optimization that incorporates uncertainties into the treatment planning optimization algorithm for treatment of base of skull cancers.We compared 2 IMPT planning methods for 10 patients with base of skull chordomas and chondrosarcomas: (1) conventional optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by creating a planning target volume (PTV); and (2) robust optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by optimizing individual spot weights without a PTV. We calculated root-mean-square deviation doses (RMSDs) for every voxel to generate RMSD volume histograms (RVHs). The area under the RVH curve was used for relative comparison of the 2 methods' plan robustness. Potential benefits of robust planning, in terms of target dose coverage and homogeneity and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using established clinical metrics. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged and compared with 2-sided paired t tests. The impact of tumor volume on the effectiveness of robust optimization was also analyzed.Relative to conventionally optimized plans, robustly optimized plans were less sensitive for both targets and OARs. In the nominal scenario, robust and conventional optimization resulted in similar D95% doses (D95% clinical target volume [CTV]: 63.3 and 64.8 Gy relative biologic effectiveness [RBE]), P <.01]) and D5%-D95% (D5%-D95% CTV: 8.0 and 7.1 Gy[RBE], [P <.01); irradiation of OARs was less with robust optimization (brainstem V60: 0.076 vs 0.26 cm(3) [P <.01], left temporal lobe V70: 0.22 vs 0.41 cm(3), [P = .068], right temporal lobe V70: 0.016 vs 0.11 cm(3), [P = .096], left cochlea Dmean: 28.1 vs 30.1 Gy[RBE], [P = .023], right cochlea Dmean: 23.7 vs 25.2 Gy[RBE], [P = .059]). Results in the worst-case scenario were analogous.Robust optimization is effective for creating clinically feasible IMPT plans for tumors of the base of skull.
Project description:Purpose:Whole pelvis radiation therapy (WPRT) in premenopausal women with cervical cancer can cause permanent ovarian damage, resulting in premature menopause. Oophoropexy, often considered as an initial step, demonstrates safety of sparing 1 ovary at the cost of delay in initiating WPRT. Therefore, we dosimetrically compared volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) techniques to allow for ovarian-sparing WPRT. Materials and Methods:Ten patients previously treated for cervical cancer at our institution were included in this institutional review board-approved analysis. A modified clinical treatment volume (CTV) was designed, sparing 1 ovary (left or right), as determined by the physician (ovarian-sparing CTV) and disease extent, including physical exam, positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. An ovarian-sparing planning target volume was determined as the ovarian-sparing CTV+5 mm for patients who were supine and 7 mm for those who were prone. All plans were calculated to a dose of 45 Gy with specific optimization goals for target volumes, while attempting to maintain a mean ovary dose (Dmean) < 15 Gy. Dosimetric goals were compared across the 2 modalities using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results:Both treatment modalities were able to achieve primary clinical goal coverage to the uterus/cervix (P = .529, comparing VMAT versus IMPT), ovarian-sparing CTV (P = .796) and ovarian-sparing planning target volume (P = .004). All 10 IMPT plans were able to accomplish the ovary objective (14.0 ± 1.66 Gy). However, only 4 of the 10 VMAT plans were able to achieve a Dmean?<?15 Gy to the prioritized ovary, with an average dose of 15.3 ± 4.10 Gy. Conclusion:Sparing an ovary in women undergoing WPRT for cervical cancer is dosimetrically feasible with IMPT without sacrificing coverage to important clinical targets. Future work will incorporate the brachytherapy dose to the ovarian-sparing CTV and assess the clinical response of this technique as a means to preserve ovarian endocrine function.
Project description:Purpose:To evaluate the dosimetric impact and plan robustness of using Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) in patients that requires prophylactic pelvic lymph nodes (PLNs) irradiation for prostate cancer. Material and methods:Five intermediate to high-risk prostate patients previously treated using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), were selected for this study. Comparative proton radiotherapy plans were generated, where a three-field intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan was for the phase 1 planning target volume (PTV1) with PLNs. A technique with two posterior oblique fields using single field uniform dose (SFUD) was used for phase 2 (PTV2) volume, that comprises of the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles (Pro?+?proxSVs). Plan evaluation was performed on PTV coverage and dose to the organs at risk (OARs) using VMAT plans as a baseline (BL). Robust analysis on clinical target volume (CTV) coverage for the PBS plans was simulated with a 3 and 5?mm setup errors and a 3.5% range uncertainty. Results:For target coverage, PTV1 and PTV2 showed negligible differences with a comparable homogeneity index (HI) values for both modalities. Proton plans produced a statistically significant lower mean dose to the bladder (32.5?Gy(RBE) vs. 46.5?Gy) and rectum (33.6?Gy(RBE) vs. 42.7?Gy). Dose to the bladder and rectum was equivalent at the high dose region. For the bowel cavity, the mean dose for proton plans were 45% lower compared to VMAT plans. Similarly, proton plans were able to achieve an overall reduction in integral dose for both treatment phase. CTV coverage remained high with all the simulated setup and range errors. Conclusions:Proposed beam geometries for PTV1 and PTV2 proton plans presented good treatment accuracy with similar target coverage as the VMAT plans. Better sparing of OARs was achieved at the low-medium dose region for the proton plans.
Project description:Purpose:To compare dosimetric data of the organs at risk (OARs) and clinical target volumes (CTVs) between intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for patients undergoing prostate and elective, pelvic lymph node radiotherapy in the setting of unfavorable, intermediate and high-risk prostate carcinoma. Methods and Materials:A study of moderately hypofractionated proton therapy (6750 centigray [cGy] in 25 fractions) is in progress for unfavorable, intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer where treatment includes an elective pelvic nodal CTV (4500 cGy in 25 fractions). Ten consecutively accrued patients were the subjects for dose-volume histogram comparison between IMPT and VMAT. Two treatment plans (IMPT and VMAT) were prepared for each patient with predefined planning objectives for target volumes and OARs. The IMPT plans were prepared with 2 lateral beams and VMAT plans with 2 arcs. Results:The CTV coverage was adequate for both plans with 99% of CTVs receiving ??100% of the prescription doses. Mean doses to the bladder, rectum, large bowel, and small bowel were lower with IMPT versus VMAT. Mean femoral head dose was greater with IMPT. The percentage of volumes of rectum receiving ??47.5 Gy, large bowel receiving ? 27.5 Gy, small bowel receiving ??30 Gy, and bladder receiving ??37.5 Gy was less with IMPT versus VMAT, largely because of reduction in the low-dose "bath" associated with VMAT. Conclusions:In the setting of prostate and elective, pelvic nodal radiotherapy for prostate cancer, IMPT can significantly reduce the dose to OARs, in comparison to VMAT, and provide adequate target coverage.
Project description:Robust optimization for IMPT takes setup and range uncertainties into account during plan optimization. However, anatomical changes were not prospectively included. The purpose of this study was to examine robustness and dose variation due to setup uncertainty and anatomical change in IMPT of lung cancer.Plans were generated with multi-field optimization based on planning target volume (MFO-PTV) and worst-case robust optimization (MFO-RO) on simulation computed tomography scans (CT0) for nine patients. Robustness was evaluated on the CT0 by computing the standard deviation of DVH (SD-DVH). Dose variations calculated on weekly CTs were compared with SD-DVH. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) change from the original plan on weekly dose was also calculated for both plans.SD-DVH and dose variation on weekly CTs were both significantly lower in the MFO-RO plans than in the MFO-PTV plans for targets, lungs, and the esophagus (p<0.05). When comparing EUD for ITV between weekly and planned dose distributions, three patients and 28% of repeated CTs for MFO-RO plans, and six patients and 44% of repeated CTs for MFO-PTV plans, respectively, showed an EUD change of >5%.RO in IMPT reduces the dose variation due to setup uncertainty and anatomy changes during treatment compared with PTV-based planning. However, dose variation could still be substantial; repeated imaging and adaptive planning as needed are highly recommended for IMPT of lung tumors.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>The aim of the present study was to compare the dose distribution generated from photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and intensity modulated carbon ion therapy (IMCIT) in the delivery of hypo-fractionated thoracic radiotherapy.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Ten selected patients who underwent thoracic particle therapy between 2015 and 2016 were re-planned to receive a relative biological effectiveness (RBE) weighted dose of 60 Gy (i.e., GyE) in 15 fractions delivered with VMAT, IMPT, or IMCIT with the same optimization criteria. Treatment plans were then compared.<h4>Results</h4>There were no significant differences in target volume dose coverage or dose conformity, except improved D<sub>95</sub> was found with IMCIT compared with VMAT (p = 0.01), and IMCIT was significantly better than IMPT in all target volume dose parameters. Particle therapy led to more prominent lung sparing at low doses, and this result was most prominent with IMCIT (p < 0.05). Improved sparing of other thoracic organs at risk (OARs) was observed with particle therapy, and IMCIT further lowered the D<sub>1cc</sub> and D<sub>5cc</sub> for major blood vessels, as compared with IMPT (p = 0.01).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Although it was comparable to VMAT, IMCIT led to significantly better tumor target dose coverage and conformity than did IMPT. Particle therapy, compared with VMAT, improved thoracic OAR sparing. IMCIT, compared with IMPT, may further improve normal lung and major blood vessel sparing under limited respiratory motion.
Project description:Objective:Contemporary radiotherapy guidelines for locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (LA-NSCLC) recommend omitting elective nodal irradiation, despite the fact that evidence supporting this came primarily from older reports assessing comprehensive nodal coverage using 3D conformal techniques. Herein, we evaluated the dosimetric implications of the addition of limited elective nodal irradiation (LENI) to standard involved field irradiation (IFI) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. Method:Target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs) were delineated on CT simulation images of 20 patients with LA-NSCLC. Two VMAT plans (IFI and LENI) were generated for each patient. Involved sites were treated to 60 Gy in 30 fractions for both IFI and LENI plans. Adjacent uninvolved nodal regions, considered high risk based on the primary tumor site and extent of nodal involvement, were treated to 51 Gy in 30 fractions in LENI plans using a simultaneous integrated boost approach. Results:All planning objectives for PTVs and OARs were achieved for both IFI and LENI plans. LENI resulted in significantly higher esophagus Dmean (15.3 vs. 22.5 Gy, p < 0.01), spinal cord Dmax (34.9 vs. 42.4 Gy, p = 0.02) and lung Dmean (13.5 vs. 15.9 Gy, p = 0.02), V20 (23.0 vs. 27.9%, p = 0.03), and V5 (52.6 vs. 59.4%, p = 0.02). No differences were observed in heart parameters. On average, only 32.2% of the high-risk nodal volume received an incidental dose of 51 Gy when untargeted in IFI plans. Conclusion:The addition of LENI to VMAT plans for LA-NSCLC is feasible, with only modestly increased doses to OARs and marginal expected increase in associated toxicity.