The partial adaptation strategy for online-adaptive proton therapy: A proof of concept study in head and neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is greatly affected by anatomy variations that might occur during the treatment course. Online plan adaptations have been proposed as a solution to intervene promptly during a treatment session once the anatomy changes are detected. The implementation of online-adaptive proton therapy (OAPT) is still hindered by time-consuming tasks in the workflow. PURPOSE: The study introduces the novel concept of partial adaptation and aims at investigating its feasibility as a potential solution to parallelize tasks during an OAPT workflow for saving valuable in-room time. METHODS: The proof-of-principle simulation study includes datasets from six head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, each consisting of one planning CT (pCT) and three contoured control CTs (cCTs). Robust 3-field normo-fractionated initial IMPT plans were generated on the pCTs with a standardized field configuration, delivering 66 Gy and 54 Gy to the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volume (CTVHigh and CTVLow), respectively. For each cCT, a dose-mimicking-based partial adaptation was applied: two fields were adapted on the current anatomy taking into account the background dose of the first non-adapted field supposedly delivered in the meantime. Fraction doses on the cCTs resulting from partially adapted plans with different first (non-adapted) field assignments were compared against those from non-adapted and fully adapted plans regarding target coverage and organs at risk (OARs) sparing. The robustness of partially adapted plans was also evaluated. RESULTS: Partially adapted plans showed comparable results to fully adapted plans and were superior to non-adapted plans for both target coverage and OAR sparing. Target coverage degradation in the non-adapted plans (median D98%: 95.9% and 97.5% for CTVLow and CTVHigh, respectively) was recovered by both partial (98.0% and 98.5%) and full adaptation (98.2% and 98.7%) in comparison to the initial plans (98.7% and 98.8%). The initial hotspot dose for the CTVHigh (median D2%: 101.8%) increased in the non-adapted plans (102.9%) and was recovered by the adaptive strategies (partial: 102.5%, full: 101.9%). The near-maximum dose (D0.01cc) to brainstem and spinal cord was within clinical constraints for all investigated dose distributions, but clearly increased for no adaptation and improved in the (both partially and fully) adapted plans with respect to the non-adapted ones. The parotids' median doses (D50) were mainly patient-specific depending on the proximity to the target region, but anyway lower for the partially and fully adapted plans compared to the non-adapted ones. OAR sparing was furthermore improved for the partially adapted plans in comparison to full adaptation. Robustness of the target dose metrics was preserved in all evaluated scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: For OAPT of HNC patients, partial adaptation is able to generate plans of superior conformity to non-adapted plans and of comparable conformity as fully adapted plans, while having the potential to speed up the online-adaptive workflows. Thus, partial adaptation represents an intermediate approach until fast online adaptation workflows become available. Furthermore, it can be applied in workflows where online treatment verification stops the delivery and triggers an online adaptation for the remaining fraction.

A retrospective study on the investigation of potential dosimetric benefits of online adaptive proton therapy for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Proton therapy is sensitive to anatomical changes, often occurring in head-and-neck (HN) cancer patients. Although multiple studies have proposed online adaptive proton therapy (APT), there is still a concern in the radiotherapy community about the necessity of online APT. We have performed a retrospective study to investigate the potential dosimetric benefits of online APT for HN patients relative to the current offline APT. METHODS: Our retrospective study has a patient cohort of 10 cases. To mimic online APT, we re-evaluated the dose of the in-use treatment plan on patients' actual treatment anatomy captured by cone-beam CT (CBCT) for each fraction and performed a templated-based automatic replanning if needed, assuming that these were performed online before treatment delivery. Cumulative dose of the simulated online APT course was calculated and compared with that of the actual offline APT course and the designed plan dose of the initial treatment plan (referred to as nominal plan). The ProKnow scoring system was employed and adapted for our study to quantify the actual quality of both courses against our planning goals. RESULTS: The average score of the nominal plans over the 10 cases is 41.0, while those of the actual offline APT course and our simulated online course is 25.8 and 37.5, respectively. Compared to the offline APT course, our online course improved dose quality for all cases, with the score improvement ranging from 0.4 to 26.9 and an average improvement of 11.7. CONCLUSION: The results of our retrospective study have demonstrated that online APT can better address anatomical changes for HN cancer patients than the current offline replanning practice. The advanced artificial intelligence based automatic replanning technology presents a promising avenue for extending potential benefits of online APT.

Dose mimicking based strategies for online adaptive proton therapy of head and neck cancer.

Objective.To compare a not adapted (NA) robust planning strategy with three fully automated online adaptive proton therapy (OAPT) workflows based on the same optimization method: dose mimicking (DM). The added clinical value and limitations of the OAPT methods are investigated for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.Approach.The three OAPT strategies aimed at compensating for inter-fractional anatomical changes by mimiking different dose distributions on corrected cone beam CT images (corrCBCTs). Order by complexity, the OAPTs were: (1) online adaptive dose restoration (OADR) where the approved clinical dose on the planning-CT (pCT) was mimicked, (2) online adaptation using DM of the deformed clinical dose from the pCT to corrCBCTs (OADEF), and (3) online adaptation applying DM to a predicted dose on corrCBCTs (OAML). Adaptation was only applied in fractions where the target coverage criteria were not met (D98% < 95% of the prescribed dose). For 10 HNC patients, the accumulated dose distributions over the 35 fractions were calculated for NA, OADR, OADEF, and OAML.Main results.Higher target coverage was observed for all OAPT strategies compared to no adaptation. OADEF and OAML outperformed both NA and OADR and were comparable in terms of target coverage to initial clinical plans. However, only OAML provided comparable NTCP values to those from the clinical dose without statistically significant differences. When the NA initial plan was evaluated on corrCBCTs, 51% of fractions needed adaptation. The adaptation rate decreased significantly to 25% when the last adapted plan with OADR was selected for delivery, to 16% with OADEF, and to 21% with OAML. The reduction was even greater when the best plan among previously generated adapted plans (instead of the last one) was selected.Significance. The implemented OAPT strategies provided superior target coverage compared to no adaptation, higher OAR sparing, and fewer required adaptations.

Comparison of MR-guided radiotherapy accumulated doses for central lung tumors with non-adaptive and online adaptive proton therapy.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of central lung tumors with photon or proton therapy has a risk of increased toxicity. Treatment planning studies comparing accumulated doses for state-of-the-art treatment techniques, such as MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), are currently lacking. PURPOSE: We conducted a comparison of accumulated doses for MRgRT, robustly optimized non-adaptive IMPT, and online adaptive IMPT for central lung tumors. A special focus was set on analyzing the accumulated doses to the bronchial tree, a parameter linked to high-grade toxicities. METHODS: Data of 18 early-stage central lung tumor patients, treated at a 0.35 T MR-linac in eight or five fractions, were analyzed. Three gated treatment scenarios were compared: (S1) online adaptive MRgRT, (S2) non-adaptive IMPT, and (S3) online adaptive IMPT. The treatment plans were recalculated or reoptimized on the daily imaging data acquired during MRgRT, and accumulated over all treatment fractions. Accumulated dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the gross tumor volume (GTV), lung, heart, and organs-at-risk (OARs) within 2 cm of the planning target volume (PTV) were extracted for each scenario and compared in Wilcoxon signed-rank tests between S1 & S2, and S1 & S3. RESULTS: The accumulated GTV D98% was above the prescribed dose for all patients and scenarios. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) of the mean ipsilateral lung dose (S2: -8%; S3: -23%) and mean heart dose (S2: -79%; S3: -83%) were observed for both proton scenarios compared to S1. The bronchial tree D0.1cc was significantly lower for S3 (S1: 48.1 Gy; S3: 39.2 Gy; p = 0.005), but not significantly different for S2 (S2: 45.0 Gy; p = 0.094), compared to S1. The D0.1cc for S2 and S3 compared to S1 was significantly (p < 0.05) smaller for OARs within 1-2 cm of the PTV (S1: 30.2 Gy; S2: 24.6 Gy; S3: 23.1 Gy), but not significantly different for OARs within 1 cm of the PTV. CONCLUSIONS: A significant dose sparing potential of non-adaptive and online adaptive proton therapy compared to MRgRT for OARs in close, but not direct proximity of central lung tumors was identified. The near-maximum dose to the bronchial tree was not significantly different for MRgRT and non-adaptive IMPT. Online adaptive IMPT achieved significantly lower doses to the bronchial tree compared to MRgRT.

A plan verification platform for online adaptive proton therapy using deep learning-based Monte-Carlo denoising.

BACKGROUND PURPOSE: This study focused on developing a fast Monte Carlo (MC) plan verification platform via a deep learning (DL)-based denoising approach. It can maintain the MC dose calculation accuracy while significantly reducing the computation time. We also investigated its potential applications for online adaptive proton therapy (APT). METHODS: First, we modeled an MC platform for proton therapy using the beam data library (BDL) required for treatment planning systems and then tested it with measured data. To accelerate the dose calculation, a dl-based denoising model with deep ResNet-deconvolution networks was developed. It was trained on the MC dose distribution of tumor sites obtained from 52 patients. The input MC dose distribution was with 1 × 106 simulated protons and the reference was 1 × 108. Fivefold cross-validation was performed. RESULTS: Comparing the MC model with measured data, the range agreement (point-to-point difference) was better than 0.85 mm, and the lateral dose profile difference was below 2.41 %. For the denoising approach, we found a significant improvement in the dose volume histogram (DVH) for predicted images compared with input images. The root mean squared error (RMSE) for predicted versus reference images was 3.94 times lower than that of the input versus reference images. Moreover, for the gamma passing rate (3 mm/3%), the predicted versus reference images have an average of 99 %, much higher than the 82 % of the input versus reference images. The MC model successfully denoised the test dose map (high noise) to approach the reference (low noise). The elapsed time can be reduced to < 60 s (simulation time [high noise] + predicted time), much lower than the simulation time of a low noise dose map (e.g., >100 min of simulation of 1 + E8 particles). CONCLUSIONS: We propose an analogous end-to-end fast plan verification platform using the combination of MC and DL methods. The platform yields dose calculation accuracy similar to MC codes while significantly reducing the elapsed time and can be used for online APT as an alternative to online plan verification.

Evaluation of the clinical value of automatic online dose restoration for adaptive proton therapy of head and neck cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to anatomical variations which can cause inadequate target coverage during treatment. This study compares not-adapted (NA) robust plans to two adaptive IMPT methods - a fully-offline adaptive (FOA) and a simplified automatic online adaptive strategy (dose restoration (DR)) to determine the benefit of DR, in head and neck cancer (HNC). MATERIAL/METHODS: Robustly optimized clinical IMPT doses in planning-CTs (pCTs) were available for a cohort of 10 HNC patients. During robust re-optimization, DR used isodose contours, generated from the clinical dose on pCTs, and patient specific objectives to reproduce the clinical dose in every repeated-CT(rCT). For each rCT(n = 50), NA, DR and FOA plans were robustly evaluated. RESULTS: An improvement in DVH-metrics and robustness was seen for DR and FOA plans compared to NA plans. For NA plans, 74%(37/50) of rCTs did not fulfill the CTV coverage criteria (D98%>95%Dprescription). DR improved target coverage, target homogeneity and variability on critical risk organs such as the spinal cord. After DR, 52%(26/50) of rCTs met all clinical goals. Because of large anatomical changes and/or inaccurate patient repositioning, 48%(24/50) of rCTs still needed full offline adaptation to ensure an optimal treatment since dose restoration was not able to re-establish the initial plan quality. CONCLUSION: Robust optimization together with fully-automatized DR avoided offline adaptation in 52% of the cases. Implementation of dose restoration in clinical routine could ensure treatment plan optimality while saving valuable human and material resources to radiotherapy departments.

Evaluation of alternative parameter settings for dose restoration and full plan adaptation in IMPT for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated proton therapy is highly sensitive to anatomical variations. A dose restoration method and a full plan adaptation method have been developed earlier, both requiring several parameter settings. This study evaluates the validity of the previously selected settings by systematically comparing them to alternatives. MATERIALS/METHODS: The dose restoration method takes a prior plan and uses an energy-adaptation followed by a spot-intensity re-optimization to restore the plan to its initial state. The full adaptation method uses an energy-adaptation followed by the addition of new spots and a spot-intensity optimization to fit the new anatomy. We varied: 1) The margins and robustness settings of the prior plan, 2) the spot-addition sample size, i.e. the number of added spots, 3) the spot-addition stopping criterion, and 4) the spot-intensity optimization approach. The last three were evaluated only for the full plan adaptation. Evaluations were done on 88 CT scans of 11 prostate cancer patients. Dose was prescribed as 55 Gy(RBE) to the lymph nodes and seminal vesicles with a boost to 74 Gy(RBE) to the prostate. RESULTS: For the dose restoration method, changing the applied CTV-to-PTV margins and plan robustness in the prior plans yielded insufficient target coverage or increased OAR doses. For the full plan adaptation, more spot-addition iterations and using a different optimization approach resulted in lower OAR doses compared to the default settings while maintaining target coverage. However, the calculation times increased by up to 20 times, making these variations infeasible for online-adaptation. CONCLUSION: We recommend maintaining the default setting for the dose restoration approach. For the full plan adaptation we recommend to focus on fine-tuning the optimization-parameters, and apart from this using the default settings.

Anatomic changes in head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy: Comparison between robust optimization and online adaptation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Setup variations and anatomical changes can severely affect the quality of head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments. The impact of these changes can be alleviated by increasing the plan's robustness a priori, or by adapting the plan online. This work compares these approaches in the context of head and neck IMPT. MATERIALS/METHODS: A representative cohort of 10 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was evaluated. For each patient, three IMPT plans were created: 1- a classical robust optimization (cRO) plan optimized on the planning CT, 2- an anatomical robust optimization (aRO) plan additionally including the two first daily CBCTs and 3- a plan optimized without robustness constraints, but online-adapted (OA) daily, using a constrained spot intensity re-optimization technique only. RESULTS: The cumulative dose following OA fulfilled the clinical objective of both the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) coverage in all 10 patients, compared to 8 for aRO and 4 for cRO. aRO did not significantly increase the dose to most organs at risk compared to cRO, although the integral dose was higher. OA significantly reduced the integral dose to healthy tissues compared to both robust methods, while providing equivalent or superior target coverage. CONCLUSION: Using a simple spot intensity re-optimization, daily OA can achieve superior target coverage and lower dose to organs at risk than robust optimization methods.

Online-adaptive versus robust IMPT for prostate cancer: How much can we gain?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to anatomical variations which can cause inadequate target coverage during treatment. Available mitigation techniques include robust treatment planning and online-adaptive IMPT. This study compares a robust planning strategy to two online-adaptive IMPT strategies to determine the benefit of online adaptation. MATERIALS/METHODS: We derived the robustness settings and safety margins needed to yield adequate target coverage (V95%≥98%) for >90% of 11 patients in a prostate cancer cohort (88 repeat CTs). For each patient, we also adapted a non-robust prior plan using a simple restoration and a full adaptation method. The restoration uses energy-adaptation followed by a fast spot-intensity re-optimization. The full adaptation uses energy-adaptation followed by the addition of new spots and a range-robust spot-intensity optimization. Dose was prescribed as 55 Gy(RBE) to the low-dose target (lymph nodes and seminal vesicles) with a boost to 74 Gy(RBE) to the high-dose target (prostate). Daily patient set-up was simulated using implanted intra-prostatic markers. RESULTS: Margins of 4 and 8 mm around the high- and low-dose target regions, a 6 mm setup error and a 3% range error were found to obtain adequate target coverage for all repeat CTs of 10/11 patients (94.3% of all 88 repeat CTs). Both online-adaptive strategies yielded V95%≥98% and better OAR sparing in 11/11 patients. Median OAR improvements up to 11%-point and 16%-point were observed when moving from robust planning to respectively restoration and full adaption. CONCLUSION: Both full plan adaptation and simple dose restoration can increase OAR sparing besides better conforming to the target criteria compared to robust treatment planning.

Plan-library supported automated replanning for online-adaptive intensity-modulated proton therapy of cervical cancer.

Background: Intensity-modulated proton therapy is sensitive to inter-fraction variations, including density changes along the pencil-beam paths and variations in organ-shape and location. Large day-to-day variations are seen for cervical cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a novel method for online selection of a plan from a patient-specific library of prior plans for different anatomies, and adapt it for the daily anatomy. Material and methods: The patient-specific library of prior plans accounting for altered target geometries was generated using a pretreatment established target motion model. Each fraction, the best fitting prior plan was selected. This prior plan was adapted using (1) a restoration of spot-positions (Bragg peaks) by adapting the energies to the new water equivalent path lengths; and (2) a spot addition to fully cover the target of the day, followed by a fast optimization of the spot-weights with the reference point method (RPM) to obtain a Pareto-optimal plan for the daily anatomy. Spot addition and spot-weight optimization could be repeated iteratively. The patient cohort consisted of six patients with in total 23 repeat-CT scans, with a prescribed dose of 45 Gy(RBE) to the primary tumor and the nodal CTV. Using a 1-plan-library (one prior plan based on all motion in the motion model) was compared to choosing from a 2-plan-library (two prior plans based on part of the motion). Results: Applying the prior-plan adaptation method with one iteration of adding spots resulted in clinically acceptable target coverage ( V95%≥95% and V107%≤2% ) for 37/46 plans using the 1-plan-library and 41/46 plans for the 2-plan-library. When adding spots twice, the 2-plan-library approach could obtain acceptable coverage for all scans, while the 1-plan-library approach showed V107%>2% for 3/46 plans. Similar OAR results were obtained. Conclusion: The automated prior-plan adaptation method can successfully adapt for the large day-to-day variations observed in cervical cancer patients.