Search

OBJECTIVE: To establish optimal robust optimization uncertainty settings for clinical head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing 3D image-guided pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy.METHODS: We analyzed ten consecutive HNC patients treated with 70 and 54.25 GyRBE to the primary and prophylactic clinical target volumes (CTV) respectively using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Clinical plans were generated using robust optimization with 5 mm/3% setup/range uncertainties (RayStation v6.1). Additional plans were created for 4, 3, 2 and 1 mm setup and 3% range uncertainty and for 3 mm setup and 3%, 2% and 1% range uncertainty. Systematic and random error distributions were determined for setup and range uncertainties based on our quality assurance program. From these, 25 treatment scenarios were sampled for each plan, each consisting of a systematic setup and range error and daily random setup errors. Fraction doses were calculated on the weekly verification CT closest to the date of treatment as this was considered representative of the daily patient anatomy.RESULTS: Plans with a 2 mm/3% setup/range uncertainty setting adequately covered the primary and prophylactic CTV (V95≥ 99% in 98.8% and 90.8% of the treatment scenarios respectively). The average organ-at-risk dose decreased with 1.1 GyRBE/mm setup uncertainty reduction and 0.5 GyRBE/1% range uncertainty reduction. Normal tissue complication probabilities decreased by 2.0%/mm setup uncertainty reduction and by 0.9%/1% range uncertainty reduction.CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that margin reduction below 3 mm/3% is possible but requires a larger cohort to substantiate clinical introduction.

PURPOSE: In the Netherlands, head and neck cancer (HNC) patients qualify for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) based on model-based selection (MBS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the first experience in MBS of HNC patients.METHODS: Patients who were subjected to MBS (Jan 2018 - Sep 2019) were evaluated. A VMAT plan was created for all patients with optimal sparing of organ at risks (OARs) in normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for a number of toxicities. An IMPT plan was created only for those with NTCP difference (ΔNTCP) between VMAT and best-case scenario for proton (assuming 0 Gy dose for all OARs in IMPT plan) that exceeded any ΔNTCP-thresholds defined in Dutch National Indication Protocol. These patients qualified for a robust IMPT-plan creation with similar target doses and subsequent plan comparison.RESULTS: Of 227 patients, 141 (62%) qualified for plan comparison, of which 80 (35%) were eventually selected for proton therapy. Most patients were selected based on the ΔNTCP for dysphagia-related toxicities. The selection rate was higher among patients with advanced disease, pharyngeal tumors, and/or baseline complaints. A significant reduction in all OAR doses and NTCP values was obtained with IMPT compared with VMAT in both selected and non-selected patients, but more pronounced in patients selected for protons.CONCLUSION: Model-based selection of patients with HNC for proton therapy is clinically feasible. Approximately one third of HNC patients qualify for protons and these patients have the highest probability to benefit from protons in terms of toxicity prevention.

Background and purpose: A planning target volume (PTV) in photon treatments aims to ensure that the clinical target volume (CTV) receives adequate dose despite treatment uncertainties. The underlying static dose cloud approximation (the assumption that the dose distribution is invariant to errors) is problematic in intensity modulated proton treatments where range errors should be taken into account as well. The purpose of this work is to introduce a robustness evaluation method that is applicable to photon and proton treatments and is consistent with (historic) PTV-based treatment plan evaluations.Materials and methods: The limitation of the static dose cloud approximation was solved in a multi-scenario simulation by explicitly calculating doses for various treatment scenarios that describe possible errors in the treatment course. Setup errors were the same as the CTV-PTV margin and the underlying theory of 3D probability density distributions was extended to 4D to include range errors, maintaining a 90% confidence level. Scenario dose distributions were reduced to voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose distributions; the first to evaluate CTV coverage and the second for hot spots. Acceptance criteria for CTV D98 and D2 were calibrated against PTV-based criteria from historic photon treatment plans.Results: CTV D98 in worst case scenario dose and voxel-wise minimum dose showed a very strong correlation with scenario average D98 (R-2 > 0.99). The voxel-wise minimum dose visualised CTV dose conformity and coverage in 3D in agreement with PTV-based evaluation in photon therapy. Criteria for CTV D98 and D2 of the voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose showed very strong correlations to PTV D98 and D2 (R-2 > 0.99) and on average needed corrections of -0.9% and +2.3%, respectively.Conclusions: A practical approach to robustness evaluation was provided and clinically implemented for PTV-less photon and proton treatment planning, consistent with PTV evaluations but without its static dose cloud approximation. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.