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.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is expected to result in clinical benefits by lowering radiation dose to organs-at-risk (OARs). However, there are concerns about plan robustness due to motion. To address this uncertainty we evaluated the robustness of IMPT compared to the widely clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on weekly repeated computed tomographies (CT).MATERIALS AND METHODS: 19 patients with oesophageal cancer were evaluated. IMPT and VMAT plans were created on a planning 4-Dimensional CT (p4DCT) and evaluated on weekly repeated 4DCTs (r4DCT). In case of inadequate target coverage or unacceptable high dose to normal tissue, re-planning was performed. Dose distributions of the r4DCTs were warped to p4DCT, resulting in an estimated actual given dose (EAGD).RESULTS: Compared to VMAT, IMPT resulted in significantly lowered dose to heart, lungs, spleen, liver and kidneys. For IMPT, target coverage was adequate (after max 1 replanning) in 17/19 cases. In two cases target coverage remained insufficient. However, in one of these patients the summed dose was insufficient (due to tumor shrinkage) while weekly coverage was adequate. For the other patient the target coverage was also insufficient by VMAT, due to large anatomical changes during treatment. For VMAT, adequate target coverage was achieved in 18/19 cases without re-planning. However, for reasons of high OAR dose re-planning was required in two cases.CONCLUSION: IMPT reduces the dose to OARs significantly, while achieving adequate target coverage in the majority of patients. Re-planning was necessary for both IMPT and VMAT due to anatomical changes.

Background and purpose Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients show typically large anatomical changes during treatment, making recalculation or adaption necessary. For report and review, the applied treatment dose can be accumulated on the reference planning CT using deformable image registration (DIR). We investigated the dosimetric impact of using six different clinically available DIR algorithms for dose accumulation in presence of inter-fractional anatomy variations. Materials and methods For seven NSCLC patients, proton treatment plans with 66 Gy-RBE to the planning target volume (PTV) were optimised. Nine repeated CTs were registered to the planning CT using six DIR algorithms each. All CTs were acquired in visually guided deep-inspiration breath-hold. The plans were recalculated on the repeated CTs and warped back to the planning CT using the corresponding DIRs. Fraction doses warped with the same DIR were summed up to six different accumulated dose distributions per patient, and compared to the initial dose. Results The PTV-V95 of accumulated doses decreased by 16% on average over all patients, with variations due to DIR selection of 8.7%. A separation of the dose effects caused by anatomical changes and DIR uncertainty showed a good agreement between the dose degradation caused by anatomical changes and the dose predicted from the average of all DIRs (differences of only 1.6%). Conclusion The dose degradation caused by anatomical changes was more pronounced than the uncertainty of employing different DIRs for dose accumulation, with averaged results from several DIRs providing a good representation of dose degradation caused by anatomy. However, accumulated dose variations between DIRs can be substantial, leading to an additional dose uncertainty., Radiotherapy & Oncology, 147, ISSN:0167-8140, ISSN:1879-0887

To optimize beam delivery and conformality of proton therapy, MRI integration has been proposed. Therefore, we investigated if proton irradiation in a magnetic field would change biological responses. Our data in cancer cell lines and stem cell-derived organoid models suggest that a magnetic field does not modify the biological response. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Objective Dose prediction using deep learning networks prior to radiotherapy might lead tomore efficient modality selections. The study goal was to predict proton and photon dose distributions based on the patient-specific anatomy and to assess their clinical usage for paediatric abdominal tumours. Material and methods Data from 80 patients with neuroblastoma or Wilms’ tumour was included. Pencil beam scanning (PBS) (5 mm/ 3%) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans (5 mm) were robustly optimized on the internal target volume (ITV). Separate 3-dimensional patch-based U-net networks were trained to predict PBS and VMAT dose distributions. Doses, planning-computed tomography images and relevant optimization masks (ITV, vertebra and organs-at-risk) of 60 patients were used for training with a 5-fold cross validation. The networks’ performance was evaluated by computing the relative error between planned and predicted dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for 20 inference patients. In addition, the organs-at-risk mean dose difference between modalities was calculated using planned and predicted dose distributions (ΔDmean = DVMAT-DPBS). Two radiation oncologists performed a blind PBS/VMAT modality selection based on either planned or predicted ΔDmean. Results Average DVH differences between planned and predicted dose distributions were ≤ |6%| for both modalities. The networks classified the organs-at-risk Dmean difference as a gain (ΔDmean > 0) with 98% precision. An identical modality selection based on planned compared to predicted ΔDmean was made for 18/20 patients. Conclusion Deep learning networks for accurate prediction of proton and photon dose distributions for abdominal paediatric tumours were established. These networks allowing fast dose visualisation might aid in identifying the optimal radiotherapy technique when experience and/or resources are unavailable.

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only treatment planning for photon and proton radiotherapy in children with abdominal tumours.Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 66 paediatric patients with Wilms' tumour or neuroblastoma (age 4 +/- 2 years) who underwent MR and computed tomography (CT) acquisition on the same day as part of the clinical protocol. MRI intensities were converted to CT Hounsfield units (HU) by means of a UNet-like neural network trained to generate synthetic CT (sCT) from T1- and T2-weighted MR images. The CT-to-sCT image similarity was evaluated by computing the mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Synthetic CT dosimetric accuracy was verified against CT-based dose distributions for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated pencil-beam scanning (PBS). Relative dose differences (D-diff) in the internal target volume and organs-at-risk were computed and a three-dimensional gamma analysis (2 mm, 2%) was performed.Results: The average +/- standard deviation ME was -5 +/- 12 HU, MAE was 57 +/- 12 HU, PSNR was 30.3 +/- 1. 6 dB and DSC was 76 +/- 8% for bones and 92 +/- 9% for lungs. Average D-diff were 99% (range [85; 100]%) for VMAT and >96% (range [87; 100]%) for PBS.Conclusion: The deep learning-based model generated accurate sCT from planning T1w- and T2w-MR images. Most dosimetric differences were within clinically acceptable criteria for photon and proton radiotherapy, demonstrating the feasibility of an MRI-only workflow for paediatric patients with abdominal tumours. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

PURPOSE: Patient specific quality assurance (PSQA) is required to verify the treatment delivery and the dose calculation by the treatment planning system (TPS). The objective of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility to substitute resource consuming measurement based PSQA (PSQAM) by independent dose recalculations (PSQAIDC), and that PSQAIDC results may be interpreted in a clinically relevant manner using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and tumor control probability (TCP) models.METHODS AND MATERIALS: A platform for the automatic execution of the two following PSQAIDC workflows was implemented: (i) using the TPS generated plan and (ii) using treatment delivery log files (log-plan). 30 head and neck cancer (HNC) patients were retrospectively investigated. PSQAM results were compared with those from the two PSQAIDC workflows. TCP / NTCP variations between PSQAIDC and the initial TPS dose distributions were investigated. Additionally, for two example patients that showed low passing PSQAM results, eight error scenarios were simulated and verified via measurements and log-plan based calculations. For all error scenarios ΔTCP / NTCP values between the nominal and the log-plan dose were assessed.RESULTS: Results of PSQAM and PSQAIDC from both implemented workflows agree within 2.7% in terms of gamma pass ratios. The verification of simulated error scenarios shows comparable trends between PSQAM and PSQAIDC. Based on the 30 investigated HNC patients, PSQAIDC observed dose deviations translate into a minor variation in NTCP values. As expected, TCP is critically related to observed dose deviations.CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a feasibility to substitute PSQAM with PSQAIDC. In addition, we showed that PSQAIDC results can be interpreted in clinically more relevant manner, for instance using TCP / NTCP.

Purpose Compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), clinical benefits are anticipated when treating thoracic tumours with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). However, the current concern of plan robustness as a result of motion hampers its wide clinical implementation. To define an optimal protocol to treat lung and oesophageal cancers, we present a comprehensive evaluation of IMPT planning strategies, based on patient 4DCTs and machine log files. Materials and methods For ten lung and ten oesophageal cancer patients, a planning 4DCT and weekly repeated 4DCTs were collected. For these twenty patients, the CTV volume and motion were assessed based on the 4DCTs. In addition to clinical VMAT plans, layered rescanned 3D and 4D robust optimised IMPT plans (IMPT_3D and IMPT_4D respectively) were generated, and approved clinically, for all patients. The IMPT plans were then delivered in dry runs at our proton facility to obtain log files, and subsequently evaluated through our 4D robustness evaluation method (4DREM). With this method, for each evaluated plan, fourteen 4D accumulated scenario doses were obtained, representing 14 possible fractionated treatment courses. Results From VMAT to IMPT_3D, nominal Dmean(lungs-GTV) decreased 2.75 ± 0.56 GyRBE and 3.76 ± 0.92 GyRBE over all lung and oesophageal cancer patients, respectively. A more pronounced reduction was verified for Dmean(heart): 5.38 ± 7.36 GyRBE (lung cases) and 9.51 ± 2.25 GyRBE (oesophagus cases). Target coverage robustness of IMPT_3D was sufficient for 18/20 patients. Averaged dose in critical structures over all 4DREM scenarios changed only slightly for both IMPT_3D and IMPT_4D. Relative to IMPT_3D, no gain in IMPT_4D was observed. Conclusion The dosimetric superiority of IMPT over VMAT has been established. For most thoracic tumours, our IMPT_3D planning protocol showed to be robust and clinically suitable. Nevertheless, accurate patient positioning and adapting to anatomical variations over the course of treatment remain compulsory.

BACKGROUND: The interplay effect might degrade the dose of pencil beam scanning proton therapy to a degree that free-breathing treatment might be impossible without further motion mitigation techniques, which complicate and prolong the treatment. We assessed whether treatment of free-breathing patients without motion mitigation is feasible.MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 40 lung cancer patients, 4DCT datasets and individual breathing patterns were used to simulate 4D dynamic dose distributions of 3D treatment plans over 33 fractions delivered with an IBA universal nozzle. Evaluation was done by assessing under- and overdosage in the target structure using the parameters V90, V95, V98, D98, D2, V107 and V110. The impact of using beam-specific target volumes and the impact of changes in motion and patient anatomy in control 4DCTs were assessed.RESULTS: Almost half of the patients had tumour motion amplitudes of less than 5 mm. Under- and overdosage was significantly smaller for patients with tumour motion below 5 mm compared to patients with larger motion (2% vs. 13% average absolute reduction of V95, 2% vs. 8% average increase in V107, p CONCLUSION: Tumour motion amplitude is an indicator of dose degradation caused by the interplay effect. Fractionation reduces the dose degradation allowing the unmitigated treatment of patients with small tumour motions of less than 5 mm. The beam-specific target approach improves the dose coverage. The tumour motion and position needs to be assessed during treatment for all patients, to quickly react to possible changes, which might require treatment adaptation.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) robustness and organ sparing capabilities with that of adaptive volumetric arc photon therapy (VMAT). Material and methods: Eighteen lung cancer patients underwent a planning 4DCT (p4DCT) and 5 weekly repeated 4DCT (r4DCT) scans. Target volumes and organs at risk were manually delineated on the three-dimensional (3D) average scans of the p4DCT (av_p4DCT) and of the r4DCT scans (av_r4DCT). Planning target volume (PTV)-based VMAT plans and internal clinical target volume (ICTV)-based robust IMPT plans were optimized in 3D on the av_p4DCT and re-calculated on the av_r4DCTs. Re-planning on av_r4DCTs was performed when indicated and accumulated doses were evaluated on the av_p4DCT. Results: Adaptive VMAT and IMPT resulted in adequate ICTV coverage on av_r4DCT in all patients and adequate accumulated-dose ICTV coverage on av_p4DCT in 17/18 patients (due to a shrinking target in one patient). More frequent re-planning was needed for IMPT than for VMAT. The average mean heart dose reduction with IMPT compared with VMAT was 4.6 Gy (p = .001) and it was >5 Gy for five patients (6, 7, 8, 15, and 22 Gy). The average mean lung dose reduction was 3.2 Gy (p

Due to anticipated clinical benefits, moving targets are potential future indications for pencil beam scanned proton therapy (PBS-PT). However, currently they are not widely treated at PBS-PT facilities due to dosimetric uncertainties caused by motion. We developed a method, the 4D robustness evaluation method (4DREM), to realistically and efficiently assess all possible events impacting PBS-PT treatments in the thorax. Using the 4DREM in large cohorts of lung and oesophageal cancer patients, it will become possible to illustrate, in clinical practice, how to trigger robustness settings for plan optimisation and to select and apply motion mitigation techniques. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology

Purpose Respiratory impacts in pencil beam scanned proton therapy (PBS-PT) are accounted by extensive 4D dose calculations, where deformable image registration (DIR) is necessary for estimating deformation vector fields (DVFs). We aim here to evaluate the dosimetric errors induced by different DIR algorithms in their resulting 4D dose calculations by using ground truth(GT)-DVFs from 4DMRI. Materials and methods Six DIR methods: ANACONDA, Morfeus, B-splines, Demons, CT Deformable, and Total Variation, were respectively applied to nine 4DCT-MRI liver data sets. The derived DVFs were then used as input for 4D dose calculation. The DIR induced dosimetric error was assessed by individually comparing the resultant 4D dose distributions to those obtained with GT-DVFs. Both single-/three-field plans and single/rescanned strategies were investigated. Results Differences in 4D dose distributions among different DIR algorithms, and compared to the results using GT-DVFs, were pronounced. Up to 40 % of clinically relevant dose calculation points showed dose differences of 10 % or more between the GT. Differences in V95(CTV) reached up to 11.34 ± 12.57 %. The dosimetric errors became in general less substantial when applying multiple-field plans or using rescanning. Conclusion Intrinsic geometric errors by DIR can influence the clinical evaluation of liver 4D PBS-PT plans. We recommend the use of an error bar for correctly interpreting individual 4D dose distributions., Radiotherapy & Oncology, 128 (1), ISSN:0167-8140, ISSN:1879-0887

Background and purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric sparing and robustness against inter-fraction anatomical changes between photon and proton dose distributions for children with abdominal tumors.Material and methods: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton dose distributions were calculated for 20 abdominal pediatric cases (average 3, range 1-8 years). VMAT plans were based on a full-arc while PBS plans on 2-3 posterior-oblique irradiation fields. Plans were robustly optimized on a patient-specific internal target volume (ITV) using a uniform 5 mm set-up uncertainty. Additionally, for the PBS plans a +/- 3% proton range uncertainty was accounted for. Fractional dose re-calculations were performed using the planning computed tomography (CT) deformably registered to the daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. Fractional doses were accumulated rigidly. Planned and CBCT accumulated VMAT and PBS dose distributions were compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters.Results: Significant better sparing of the organs at risk with a maximum reduction in the mean dose of 40% was achieved with PBS. Mean ITV DVH parameters differences between planned and CBCT accumulated dose distributions were smaller than 0.5% for both VMAT and PBS. However, the ITV coverage (V-95% > 99%) was not reached for one patient for the accumulated VMAT dose distribution.Conclusions: For pediatric patients with abdominal tumors, improved dosimetric sparing was obtained with PBS compared to VMAT. In addition, PBS delivered by posterior-oblique irradiation fields demonstrated to be robust against anatomical inter-fraction changes. Compared to PBS, daily anatomical changes proved to affect the target coverage of VMAT dose distributions to a higher extent. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Purpose/Objective Pencil beam scanning (PBS) is a highly conformal technology to treat cancer. The time structure of PBS makes the treatment of moving tumours challenging due to the interplay effect. According to literature, PBS in combination with rescanning can be safely applied without motion mitigation strategies to lung tumours that move 5 mm or less. However, the question is whether the motion measured during treatment simulation will remain below 5 mm during the course of treatment. We investigated the inter-fractional lung tumour motion variation in a unique data set providing five repeated 4DCTs per patient, to evaluate if a 5 mm threshold is a reliable indicator for considering PBS treatments. Material/Methods For 19 NSCLC patients (11 male, 8 female, age: 47-89, stage: II-IV) weekly 4DCT imaging was performed during treatment simulation before and during the treatment course to monitor the anatomical changes and differences in motion. Gross tumour volumes (GTV) were delineated on the maximum inspiration and expiration phases of the planning 4DCT and on the weekly repeat 4DCTs. GTV volume changes were acquired and the weekly inter-fraction motion variation was evaluated by measuring the GTV centroid translations in all three directions. Results The patients showed a median initial tumour motion of 1.3 mm (range: 0.0 – 5.1 mm) for a median initial GTV volume of 28.7 cm3 (range: 1.9 – 430.0 cm3). Figure 1 shows the measured 3D-vector motion for week 0 (before start treatment) and week 1-5 (treatment course). The maximum deviation from the initial measured motion for the patients was on average 2.1 mm (range: 0.3 – 7.9 mm). Centroid displacements remained under 5 mm for 16 out of 19 patients over the entire course of treatment. For patients number 3, 4 and 11, an increase in motion up to a maximum of respectively 9.1, 11.2, and 6.5 mm was observed (Figure 2). GTV volumes for 15 out of 19 patients shrank during treatment with a median decrease of 35.4% (range: 10.8% - 63.7%), and a median absolute volume change of 8.3 cm3 (range: 0.5 - 105.9 cm3). Conclusion Even if the lung tumour motion during planning simulation is under 5 mm, variations in motion amplitude and larger motions can still occur during the course of treatment. This indicates that the use of daily tumour motion evaluation is required for PBS treatments, especially for hypo-fractionated treatments. Future work will include a risk-stratification for motion variations in lung patients based on initial tumour motion, tumour position and tumour volume for different PBS spot sizes, time structure and prescribed treatment courses.