Clinical practice vs. state-of-the-art research and future visions:Report on the 4D treatment planning workshop for particle therapy - Edition 2018 and 2019

The 4D Treatment Planning Workshop for Particle Therapy, a workshop dedicated to the treatment of moving targets with scanned particle beams, started in 2009 and since then has been organized annually. The mission of the workshop is to create an informal ground for clinical medical physicists, medical physics researchers and medical doctors interested in the development of the 4D technology, protocols and their translation into clinical practice. The 10th and 11th editions of the workshop took place in Sapporo, Japan in 2018 and Krakow, Poland in 2019, respectively. This review report from the Sapporo and Krakow workshops is structured in two parts, according to the workshop programs. The first part comprises clinicians and physicists review of the status of 4D clinical implementations. Corresponding talks were given by speakers from five centers around the world: Maastro Clinic (The Netherlands), University Medical Center Groningen (The Netherlands), MD Anderson Cancer Center (United States), University of Pennsylvania (United States) and The Proton Beam Therapy Center of Hokkaido University Hospital (Japan). The second part is dedicated to novelties in 4D research, i.e. motion modelling, artificial intelligence and new technologies which are currently being investigated in the radiotherapy field

Enhanced Deep-Inspiration Breath Hold Superior to High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation for Respiratory Motion Mitigation: A Physiology-Driven, MRI-Guided Assessment Toward Optimized Lung Cancer Treatment With Proton Therapy

Background: To safely treat lung tumors using particle radiation therapy (PRT), motion-mitigation strategies are of critical importance to ensure precise irradiation. Therefore, we compared applicability, effectiveness, reproducibility, and subjects' acceptance of enhanced deep-inspiration breath hold (eDIBH) with high-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) by MRI assessment within 1 month. Methods: Twenty-one healthy subjects (12 males/9 females; age: 49.5 ± 5.8 years; BMI: 24.7 ± 3.3 kg/m−2) performed two 1.5 T MRI scans in four visits at weekly intervals under eDIBH and HFPV conditions, accompanied by daily, home-based breath-hold training and spirometric assessments over a 3-week period. eDIBH consisted of 8-min 100% O2 breathing (3 min resting ventilation, 5 min controlled hyperventilation) prior to breath hold. HFPV was set at 200–250 pulses min−1 and 0.8–1.2 bar. Subjects' acceptance and preference were evaluated by questionnaire. To quantify inter- and intrafractional changes, a lung distance metric representing lung topography was computed for 10 reference points: a motion-invariant spinal cord and nine lung structure contours (LSCs: apex, carina, diaphragm, and six vessels as tumor surrogates distributed equally across the lung). To parameterize individual LSC localizability, measures of their spatial variabilities were introduced and lung volumes calculated by automated MRI analysis. Results: eDIBH increased breath-hold duration by > 100% up to 173 ± 73 s at visit 1, and to 217 ± 67 s after 3 weeks of home-based training at visit 4 (p < 0.001). Measures of vital capacity and lung volume remained constant over the 3-week period. Two vessels in the lower lung segment and the diaphragm yielded a two- to threefold improved positional stability with eDIBH, whereby absolute distance variability was significantly smaller for five LSCs; ≥70% of subjects showed significantly better intrafractional lung motion mitigation under reproducible conditions with eDIBH compared with HFPV with smaller ranges most apparent in the anterior-posterior and cranial-caudal directions. Approximately 80% of subjects preferred eDIBH over HFPV, with “less discomfort” named as most frequent reason. Conclusions: Both, eDIBH, and HFPV were well-tolerated. eDIBH duration was long enough to allow for potential PRT. Variability in lung volume was smaller and position of lung structures more precise with eDIBH. Subjects preferred eDIBH over HFPV. Thus, eDIBH is a very promising tool for lung tumor therapy with PRT, and further investigation of its applicability in patients is warranted.ISSN:2234-943