Search

Purpose: Reirradiation of thoracic malignancies is a treatment challenge, with concerns for toxicity and the inability to deliver definitive doses. Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may allow safe delivery of a higher dose of radiation to the tumor while minimizing toxicities., Methods and Materials: Between 2011 and 2016, 27 patients who received IMPT for reirradiation of thoracic malignancies with definitive intent were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were included if they received a prior thoracic radiation course. All doses were recalculated to an equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2). Patients received IMPT to a median dose of 66 EQD2 Gy (range, 43.2-84 Gy) for recurrence of thoracic cancer (93%) or sequentially after a course of thoracic stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (7%)., Results: Twenty-two patients (81%) were treated for non-small cell lung cancer. The median time to reirradiation was 29.5 months. At a median follow-up for all patients of 11.2 months (25.9 surviving patients), the median overall survival was 18.0 months, with a 1-year overall survival of 54%. Four patients (15%) experienced an in-field local failure (LF), with a 1-year freedom from LF rate of 78%. The 1-year freedom from locoregional failure and 1-year progression-free survival rates were 61% and 51%, respectively. Patients who received 66 EQD2 Gy or higher had improved 1-year freedom from LF (100% vs 49%; P = .013), 1-year freedom from locoregional failure (84% vs 23%; P = .035), and 1-year progression-free survival (76% vs 14%; P = .050). Reirradiation was well tolerated, with only 2 patients (7%) experiencing late grade 3 pulmonary toxicity, and none with grade 3 or higher esophagitis. There were no grade 4-5 toxicities., Conclusions: These data represent the largest series of patients treated with IMPT for definitive reirradiation of thoracic cancers. They demonstrate that IMPT provided durable local control with minimal toxicity and suggest that higher doses may improve outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe our experience implementing intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung-intact malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), including patient selection, treatment planning, dose verification, and process optimization., Methods and Materials: Seven patients with epithelioid MPM were reviewed; 6 underwent pleurectomy, whereas 1 had biopsy alone. Four patients received IMPT and 3 received intensity modulated radiation therapy. Treatment plans for the other modality were created for dosimetric comparisons. Quality assurance processes included dose verification and robustness analysis. Image-guided setup was performed with the first isocenter, and couch shifts were applied to reposition to the second isocenter., Results: Treatment with IMPT was well tolerated and completed without breaks. IMPT plans were designed with 2 isocenters, 4 beams, and ≤64 energy layers per beam. Dose verification processes were completed in 3 hours. Total daily treatment time was approximately 45 minutes (20 minutes for setup and 25 minutes for delivery). IMPT produced lower mean doses to the contralateral lung, heart, esophagus, liver, and ipsilateral kidney, with increased contralateral lung sparing when mediastinal boost was required for nodal disease., Conclusions: Our initial experience showed that IMPT was feasible for routine care of patients with lung-intact MPM., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We compared conventionally optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans against worst-case scenario optimized treatment plans for lung cancer. The comparison of the 2 IMPT optimization strategies focused on the resulting plans' ability to retain dose objectives under the influence of patient setup, inherent proton range uncertainty, and dose perturbation caused by respiratory motion., Methods and Materials: For each of the 9 lung cancer cases, 2 treatment plans were created that accounted for treatment uncertainties in 2 different ways. The first used the conventional method: delivery of prescribed dose to the planning target volume that is geometrically expanded from the internal target volume (ITV). The second used a worst-case scenario optimization scheme that addressed setup and range uncertainties through beamlet optimization. The plan optimality and plan robustness were calculated and compared. Furthermore, the effects on dose distributions of changes in patient anatomy attributable to respiratory motion were investigated for both strategies by comparing the corresponding plan evaluation metrics at the end-inspiration and end-expiration phase and absolute differences between these phases. The mean plan evaluation metrics of the 2 groups were compared with 2-sided paired Student t tests., Results: Without respiratory motion considered, we affirmed that worst-case scenario optimization is superior to planning target volume-based conventional optimization in terms of plan robustness and optimality. With respiratory motion considered, worst-case scenario optimization still achieved more robust dose distributions to respiratory motion for targets and comparable or even better plan optimality (D95% ITV, 96.6% vs 96.1% [P = .26]; D5%- D95% ITV, 10.0% vs 12.3% [P = .082]; D1% spinal cord, 31.8% vs 36.5% [P = .035])., Conclusions: Worst-case scenario optimization led to superior solutions for lung IMPT. Despite the fact that worst-case scenario optimization did not explicitly account for respiratory motion, it produced motion-resistant treatment plans. However, further research is needed to incorporate respiratory motion into IMPT robust optimization., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: 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., Methods and Materials: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: Robust optimization is effective for creating clinically feasible IMPT plans for tumors of the base of skull.