Search

Purpose: Proton dose distributions can potentially be altered by anatomical changes in the beam path despite perfect target alignment using traditional image guidance methods. In this simulation study, the authors explored the use of dosimetric factors instead of only anatomy to set up patients for proton therapy using in-room volumetric computed tomographic (CT) images. Methods: To simulate patient anatomy in a free-breathing treatment condition, weekly time-averaged four-dimensional CT data near the end of treatment for 15 lung cancer patients were used in this study for a dose-based isocenter shift method to correct dosimetric deviations without replanning. The isocenter shift was obtained using the traditional anatomy-based image guidance method as the starting position. Subsequent isocenter shifts were established based on dosimetric criteria using a fast dose approximation method. For each isocenter shift, doses were calculated every 2 mm up to ±8 mm in each direction. The optimal dose alignment was obtained by imposing a target coverage constraint that at least 99% of the target would receive at least 95% of the prescribed dose and by minimizing the mean dose to the ipsilateral lung. Results: The authors found that 7 of 15 plans did not meet the target coverage constraint when using only the anatomy-based alignment. After the authors applied dose-based alignment, all met the target coverage constraint. For all but one case in which the target dose was met using both anatomy-based and dose-based alignment, the latter method was able to improve normal tissue sparing. Conclusions: The authors demonstrated that a dose-based adjustment to the isocenter can improve target coverage and/or reduce dose to nearby normal tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to uncertainties in beam range and patient setup. Conventionally, these uncertainties are dealt using geometrically expanded planning target volume (PTV). In this paper, the authors evaluated a robust optimization method that deals with the uncertainties directly during the spot weight optimization to ensure clinical target volume (CTV) coverage without using PTV. The authors compared the two methods for a population of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients. Methods: Two sets of IMPT plans were generated for 14 H&N cases, one being PTV-based conventionally optimized and the other CTV-based robustly optimized. For the PTV-based conventionally optimized plans, the uncertainties are accounted for by expanding CTV to PTV via margins and delivering the prescribed dose to PTV. For the CTV-based robustly optimized plans, spot weight optimization was guided to reduce the discrepancy in doses under extreme setup and range uncertainties directly, while delivering the prescribed dose to CTV rather than PTV. For each of these plans, the authors calculated dose distributions under various uncertainty settings. The root-mean-square dose (RMSD) for each voxel was computed and the area under the RMSD-volume histogram curves (AUC) was used to relatively compare plan robustness. Data derived from the dose volume histogram in the worst-case and nominal doses were used to evaluate the plan optimality. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged over the 14 cases and were compared with two-sided paired t tests. Results: CTV-based robust optimization led to more robust (i.e., smaller AUCs) plans for both targets and organs. Under the worst-case scenario and the nominal scenario, CTV-based robustly optimized plans showed better target coverage (i.e., greater D95%), improved dose homogeneity (i.e., smaller D5% - D95%), and lower or equivalent dose to organs at risk. Conclusions: CTV-based robust optimization provided significantly more robust dose distributions to targets and organs than PTV-based conventional optimization in H&N using IMPT. Eliminating the use of PTV and planning directly based on CTV provided better or equivalent normal tissue sparing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Beam angle optimization (BAO) by far remains an important and challenging problem in external beam radiation therapy treatment planning. Conventional BAO algorithms discussed in previous studies all focused on photon-based therapies. Impact of BAO on proton therapy is important while proton therapy increasingly receives great interests. This study focuses on potential benefits of BAO on intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) that recently began available to clinical cancer treatment. Methods: The authors have developed a novel uncertainty incorporated BAO algorithm for IMPT treatment planning in that IMPT plan quality is highly sensitive to uncertainties such as proton range and setup errors. A linear programming was used to optimize robust intensity maps to scenario-based uncertainties for an incident beam angle configuration. Unlike conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy with photons (IMXT), the search space for IMPT treatment beam angles may be relatively small but optimizing an IMPT plan may require higher computational costs due to larger data size. Therefore, a deterministic local neighborhood search algorithm that only needs a very limited number of plan objective evaluations was used to optimize beam angles in IMPT treatment planning. Results: Three prostate cancer cases and two skull base chordoma cases were studied to demonstrate the dosimetric advantages and robustness of optimized beam angles from the proposed BAO algorithm. Two- to four-beam plans were optimized for prostate cases, and two- and three-beam plans were optimized for skull base cases. By comparing plans with conventional two parallel-opposed angles, all plans with optimized angles consistently improved sparing at organs at risks, i.e., rectum and femoral heads for prostate, brainstem for skull base, in either nominal dose distribution or uncertainty-based dose distributions. The efficiency of the BAO algorithm was demonstrated by comparing it with alternative methods including simulated annealing and genetic algorithm. The numbers of IMPT plan objective evaluations required were reduced by up to a factor of 5 while the same optimal angle plans were converged in selected comparisons. Conclusions: Uncertainty incorporated BAO may introduce pronounced improvement of IMPT plan quality including dosimetric benefits and robustness over uncertainties, based on the five clinical studies in this paper. In addition, local search algorithms may be more efficient in finding optimal beam angles than global optimization approaches for IMPT BAO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Monotherapy is not very effective for intermediate or advanced stage HCC. Efficacy of combined therapy using transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3-DCRT) for advanced HCC should be evaluated. Methods: HCC patients were selected from our patient database. The sequence of treatments that patients underwent was several courses of TACE followed in 2–4 weeks by 3-DCRT. The median tumor irradiation dose was 44Gy. Toxicity, tumor response, and overall survival rate were analyzed. Results: 140 HCC patients were followed up by the last follow-up time. Among these patients, hepatic toxicities due to treatment were notable in 15 cases. Gastrointestinal bleeding after the overall treatment occurred in 3 cases. Leukopenia of grade III was detected in 1 case. Radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) was observed in 3 patients. Among 140 patients, 27, 97, and 16 cases achieved partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease, respectively. The overall survival rates of 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years were 66%, 29%, and 13%, respectively, with a median survival time of 18 months. Both Child-Pugh grade and radiation dose were determined to be independent predictors for overall survival from multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The combined modality of TACE and 3-DCRT is a promising treatment for unresectable HCC. A large-scale, prospective randomized trial should be performed to confirm the utility of this combined therapy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Proton beam therapy (PBT) offers the potential of dose escalation to target tissue while decreasing toxicity through unique physical dose deposition characteristics. PBT has been used to treat prostate cancer for several decades; however, recent enhancements in availability and treatment delivery have peaked interest in this technology among radiation oncologists, industry experts, and prostate cancer patients. As a result, the importance of understanding the collective experience and technical aspects of PBT delivery has become increasingly important in radiation medicine. This review article is intended to critically review the literature on PBT for localized prostate cancer, discuss the fundamentals of PBT treatment planning, and describe the continued development of proton beam technology for the treatment of prostate cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to assess the monitor unit (MU) values and position accuracy of spot scanning proton beams as recorded by the daily treatment logs of the treatment control system, and furthermore establish the feasibility of using the delivered spot positions and MU values to calculate and evaluate delivered doses to patients. Methods: To validate the accuracy of the recorded spot positions, the authors generated and executed a test treatment plan containing nine spot positions, to which the authors delivered ten MU each. The spot positions were measured with radiographic films and Matrixx 2D ion-chambers array placed at the isocenter plane and compared for displacements from the planned and recorded positions. Treatment logs for 14 patients were then used to determine the spot MU values and position accuracy of the scanning proton beam delivery system. Univariate analysis was used to detect any systematic error or large variation between patients, treatment dates, proton energies, gantry angles, and planned spot positions. The recorded patient spot positions and MU values were then used to replace the spot positions and MU values in the plan, and the treatment planning system was used to calculate the delivered doses to patients. The results were compared with the treatment plan. Results: Within a treatment session, spot positions were reproducible within ±0.2 mm. The spot positions measured by film agreed with the planned positions within ±1 mm and with the recorded positions within ±0.5 mm. The maximum day-to-day variation for any given spot position was within ±1 mm. For all 14 patients, with ∼1 500 000 spots recorded, the total MU accuracy was within 0.1% of the planned MU values, the mean (x, y) spot displacement from the planned value was (-0.03 mm, -0.01 mm), the maximum (x, y) displacement was (1.68 mm, 2.27 mm), and the (x, y) standard deviation was (0.26 mm, 0.42 mm). The maximum dose difference between calculated dose to the patient based on the plan and recorded data was within 2%. Conclusions: The authors have shown that the treatment log file in a spot scanning proton beam delivery system is precise enough to serve as a quality assurance tool to monitor variation in spot position and MU value, as well as the delivered dose uncertainty from the treatment delivery system. The analysis tool developed here could be useful for assessing spot position uncertainty and thus dose uncertainty for any patient receiving spot scanning proton beam therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We compared mandibular doses and osteoradionecrosis in patients with oropharyngeal cancer after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods and materials We identified 584 patients who received definitive radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer from January 2011 through June 2014 at MD Anderson Cancer Center (534 IMRT and 50 IMPT). The dosimetric variables and osteoradionecrosis were compared with Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Results Median follow-up time for all patients (534 IMRT and IMPT) was 33.8 months (33.8 months IMRT vs. 34.6 months IMPT, P = 0.854), and median time to osteoradionecrosis was 11.4 months (range 6.74–16.1 months). Mandibular doses were lower for patients treated with IMPT (minimum 0.8 vs. 7.3 Gy; mean 25.6 vs. 41.2 Gy; P < 0.001), and osteoradionecrosis rates were lower as well: 2% IMPT (1 grade 1), 7.7% IMRT (12 grade 4, 5 grade 3, 1 grade 2 and 23 grade 1). Osteoradionecrosis location depended on the primary tumor site and high-dose field in the mandible. Conclusions Osteoradionecrosis events were significantly associated with higher dose irradiation to mandibular. Use of IMPT minimized excess irradiation of the mandible and consequently reduced the risk of osteoradionecrosis for oropharyngeal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A single-institution prospective study was conducted to assess disease control and toxicity of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer.Methods and Materials: Disease control, toxicity, functional outcomes, and patterns of failure for the initial cohort of patients with oropharyngeal squamous carcinoma (OPC) treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were prospectively collected in 2 registry studies at a single institution. Locoregional failures were analyzed by using deformable image registration.Results: Fifty patients with OPC treated from March 3, 2011, to July 2014 formed the cohort. Eighty-four percent were male, 50% had never smoked, 98% had stage III/IV disease, 64% received concurrent therapy, and 35% received induction chemotherapy. Forty-four of 45 tumors (98%) tested for p16 were positive. All patients received IMPT (multifield optimization to n=46; single-field optimization to n=4). No Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. The most common grade 3 toxicities were acute mucositis in 58% of patients and late dysphagia in 12%. Eleven patients had a gastrostomy (feeding) tube placed during therapy, but none had a feeding tube at last follow-up. At a median follow-up time of 29 months, 5 patients had disease recurrence: local in 1, local and regional in 1, regional in 2, and distant in 1. The 2-year actuarial overall and progression-free survival rates were 94.5% and 88.6%.Conclusions: The oncologic, toxicity, and functional outcomes after IMPT for OPC are encouraging and provide the basis for ongoing and future clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We report the first clinical experience and toxicity of multifield optimization (MFO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for patients with head and neck tumors. Methods and Materials: Fifteen consecutive patients with head and neck cancer underwent MFO-IMPT with active scanning beam proton therapy. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) had comprehensive treatment extending from the base of the skull to the clavicle. The doses for chemoradiation therapy and radiation therapy alone were 70 Gy and 66 Gy, respectively. The robustness of each treatment plan was also analyzed to evaluate sensitivity to uncertainties associated with variations in patient setup and the effect of uncertainties with proton beam range in patients. Proton beam energies during treatment ranged from 72.5 to 221.8 MeV. Spot sizes varied depending on the beam energy and depth of the target, and the scanning nozzle delivered the spot scanning treatment “spot by spot” and “layer by layer.” Results: Ten patients presented with SCC and 5 with adenoid cystic carcinoma. All 15 patients were able to complete treatment with MFO-IMPT, with no need for treatment breaks and no hospitalizations. There were no treatment-related deaths, and with a median follow-up time of 28 months (range, 20-35 months), the overall clinical complete response rate was 93.3% (95% confidence interval, 68.1%-99.8%). Xerostomia occurred in all 15 patients as follows: grade 1 in 10 patients, grade 2 in 4 patients, and grade 3 in 1 patient. Mucositis within the planning target volumes was seen during the treatment of all patients: grade 1 in 1 patient, grade 2 in 8 patients, and grade 3 in 6 patients. No patient experienced grade 2 or higher anterior oral mucositis. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first clinical report of MFO-IMPT for head and neck tumors. Early clinical outcomes are encouraging and warrant further investigation of proton therapy in prospective clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We have previously found that ≤ 75% of treatment failures after chemoradiotherapy for unresectable esophageal cancer appear within the gross tumor volume and that intensity-modulated (photon) radiotherapy (IMRT) might allow dose escalation to the tumor without increasing normal tissue toxicity. Proton therapy might allow additional dose escalation, with even lower normal tissue toxicity. In the present study, we compared the dosimetric parameters for photon IMRT with that for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for unresectable, locally advanced, distal esophageal cancer. Patients and Methods: Four plans were created for each of 10 patients. IMPT was delivered using anteroposterior (AP)/posteroanterior beams, left posterior oblique/right posterior oblique (LPO/RPO) beams, or AP/LPO/RPO beams. IMRT was delivered with a concomitant boost to the gross tumor volume. The dose was 65.8 Gy to the gross tumor volume and 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume in 28 fractions. Results: Relative to IMRT, the IMPT (AP/posteroanterior) plan led to considerable reductions in the mean lung dose (3.18 vs. 8.27 Gy, p < .0001) and the percentage of lung volume receiving 5, 10, and 20 Gy (p ≤ .0006) but did not reduce the cardiac dose. The IMPT LPO/RPO plan also reduced the mean lung dose (4.9 Gy vs. 8.2 Gy, p < .001), the heart dose (mean cardiac dose and percentage of the cardiac volume receiving 10, 20, and 30 Gy, p ≤ .02), and the liver dose (mean hepatic dose 5 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy, p < .0001). The IMPT AP/LPO/RPO plan led to considerable reductions in the dose to the lung (p ≤ .005), heart (p ≤ .003), and liver (p ≤ .04). Conclusions: Compared with IMRT, IMPT for distal esophageal cancer lowered the dose to the heart, lung, and liver. The AP/LPO/RPO beam arrangement was optimal for sparing all three organs. The dosimetric benefits of protons will need to be tailored to each patient according to their specific cardiac and pulmonary risks. IMPT for esophageal cancer will soon be investigated further in a prospective trial at our institution. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]