Proton arc therapy increases the benefit of proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients in the model based clinic

Background and purpose: In the model-based approach, patients qualify for proton therapy when the reduction in risk of toxicity (ΔNTCP) obtained with IMPT relative to VMAT is larger than predefined thresholds as defined by the Dutch National Indication Protocol (NIPP). Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging technology which has the potential to further decrease NTCPs compared to IMPT. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of PAT on the number of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients that qualify for proton therapy.Materials and methods: A prospective cohort of 223 OPC patients subjected to the model-based selection procedure was investigated. 33 (15%) patients were considered unsuitable for proton treatment before plan comparison. When IMPT was compared to VMAT for the remaining 190 patients, 148 (66%) patients qualified for protons and 42 (19%) patients did not. For these 42 patients treated with VMAT, robust PAT plans were generated.Results: PAT plans provided better or similar target coverage compared to IMPT plans. In the PAT plans, integral dose was significantly reduced by 18% relative to IMPT plans and by 54% relative to VMAT plans. PAT decreased the mean dose to numerous organs-at-risk (OARs), further reducing NTCPs. The ΔNTCP for PAT relative to VMAT passed the NIPP thresholds for 32 out of the 42 patients treated with VMAT, resulting in 180 patients (81%) of the complete cohort qualifying for protons.Conclusion: PAT outperforms IMPT and VMAT, leading to a further reduction of NTCP-values and higher ΔNTCP-values, significantly increasing the percentage of OPC patients selected for proton therapy.</p

Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities

Background: Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times.Purpose: To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course.Methods: For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia.Results: The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2).Conclusions: Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.</p

Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities

Background: Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times.Purpose: To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course.Methods: For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia.Results: The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2).Conclusions: Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.</p

Diaphragm-Based Position Verification to Improve Daily Target Dose Coverage in Proton and Photon Radiation Therapy Treatment of Distal Esophageal Cancer

Purpose: In modern conformal radiation therapy of distal esophageal cancer, target coverage can be affected by variations in the diaphragm position. We investigated if daily position verification (PV) extended by a diaphragm position correction would optimize target dose coverage for esophageal cancer treatment. Methods and Materials: For 15 esophageal cancer patients, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were computed. Displacements of the target volume were correlated with diaphragm displacements using repeated 4-dimensional computed tomography images to determine the correction needed to account for diaphragm variations. Afterwards, target coverage was evaluated for 3 PV approaches based on: (1) bony anatomy (PV_B), (2) bony anatomy corrected for the diaphragm position (PV_BD) and (3) target volume (PV_T). Results: The cranial-caudal mean target displacement was congruent with almost half of the diaphragm displacement (y = 0.459x), which was used for the diaphragm correction in PV_BD. Target dose coverage using PV_B was adequate for most patients with diaphragm displacements up till 10 mm (>= 94% of the dose in 98% of the volume [D-98%]). For larger displacements, the target coverage was better maintained by PV_T and PV_BD. Overall, PV_BD accounted best for target displacements, especially in combination with tissue density variations (D-98%: IMPT 94% +/- 5%, VMAT 96% +/- 5%). Diaphragm displacements of more than 10 mm were observed in 22% of the cases. Conclusions: PV_B was sufficient to achieve adequate target dose coverage in case of small deviations in diaphragm position. However, large deviations of the diaphragm were best mitigated by PV_BD. To detect the cases where target dose coverage could be compromised due to diaphragm position variations, we recommend monitoring of the diaphragm position before treatment through online imaging. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Quality of life and toxicity guided treatment plan optimisation for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of semi-automatic Quality of Life (QOL)-weighted normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)-guided VMAT treatment plan optimisation in head and neck cancer (HNC) and compare predicted QOL to that obtained with conventional treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 30 HNC patients who were treated with definitive radiotherapy. QOL-weighted NTCP-guided VMAT plans were optimised directly on 80 multivariable NTCP models of 20 common toxicities and symptoms on 4 different time points (6, 12, 18 and 24 months after radiotherapy) and each NTCP model was weighted relative to its impact on QOL. Planning results, NTCP and predicted QOL were compared with the clinical conventional VMAT plans. RESULTS: QOL-weighted NTCP-guided VMAT plans were clinically acceptable, had target coverage equally adequate as the clinical plans, but prioritised sparing of organs at risk (OAR) related to toxicities and symptoms that had the highest impact on QOL. NTCP was reduced for, e.g., dysphagia (-6.1% for ≥ grade 2/ -7.6% for ≥ grade 3) and moderate-to-severe fatigue / speech problems / hoarseness (-0.7%/ -1.5%/ -2.5%) at 6 months, respectively. Concurrently, the average NTCP of toxicities related to salivary function increased with +0.4% to +5.7%. QOL-weighted NTCP-guided plans were produced in less time, were less dependent on the treatment planner experience and yielded more consistent results. The average predicted QOL improved by 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 points on a 0-100 scale (p < 0.001) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively, compared to the clinical plans. CONCLUSION: Semi-automatic QOL-weighted NTCP-guided VMAT treatment plan optimisation is feasible. It prioritised sparing of OARs related to high-impact toxicities and symptoms and resulted in a systematic improvement of predicted QOL compared to conventional VMAT

Assessment of a diaphragm override strategy for robustly optimized proton therapy planning for esophageal cancer patients

PURPOSE: To ensure target coverage in the treatment of esophageal cancer, a density override to the region of diaphragm motion can be applied in the optimization process. Here, we evaluate the benefit of this approach during robust optimization for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning.MATERIALS AND METHODS: For ten esophageal cancer patients, two robustly optimized IMPT plans were created either using (WDO) or not using (NDO) a diaphragm density override of 1.05 g/cm3 during plan optimization. The override was applied to the excursion of the diaphragm between exhale and inhale. Initial robustness evaluation was performed for plan acceptance (setup errors of 8 mm, range errors of ±3%), and subsequently, on all weekly repeated 4DCTs (setup errors of 2 mm, range errors of ±3%). Target coverage and hotspots were analyzed on the resulting voxel-wise minimum (Vwmin ) and voxel-wise maximum (Vwmax ) dose distributions.RESULTS: The nominal dose distributions were similar for both WDO and NDO plans. However, visual inspection of the Vwmax of the WDO plans showed hotspots behind the right diaphragm override region. For one patient, target coverage and hotspots improved by applying the diaphragm override. We found no differences in target coverage in the weekly evaluations between the two approaches.CONCLUSION: The diaphragm override approach did not result in a clinical benefit in terms of planning and interfractional robustness. Therefore, we don't see added value in employing this approach as a default option during robust optimization for IMPT planning in esophageal cancer.</p