Quantification of biological range uncertainties in patients treated at the Krakow proton therapy centre.

BACKGROUND: Variable relative biological effectiveness (vRBE) in proton therapy might significantly modify the prediction of RBE-weighted dose delivered to a patient during proton therapy. In this study we will present a method to quantify the biological range extension of the proton beam, which results from the application of vRBE approach in RBE-weighted dose calculation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The treatment plans of 95 patients (brain and skull base patients) were used for RBE-weighted dose calculation with constant and the McNamara RBE model. For this purpose the Monte Carlo tool FRED was used. The RBE-weighted dose distributions were analysed using indices from dose-volume histograms. We used the volumes receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose (V95) to estimate the biological range extension resulting from vRBE approach. RESULTS: The vRBE model shows higher median value of relative deposited dose and D95 in the planning target volume by around 1% for brain patients and 4% for skull base patients. The maximum doses in organs at risk calculated with vRBE was up to 14 Gy above dose limit. The mean biological range extension was greater than 0.4 cm. DISCUSSION: Our method of estimation of biological range extension is insensitive for dose inhomogeneities and can be easily used for different proton plans with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization. Using volumes instead of dose profiles, which is the common method, is more universal. However it was tested only for IMPT plans on fields arranged around the tumor area. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting a vRBE model results in an increase in dose and an extension of the beam range, which is especially disadvantageous in cancers close to organs at risk. Our results support the need to re-optimization of proton treatment plans when considering vRBE.

Study of relationship between dose, LET and the risk of brain necrosis after proton therapy for skull base tumors.

PURPOSE: We investigated the relationship between RBE-weighted dose (DRBE) calculated with constant (cRBE) and variable RBE (vRBE), dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) and the risk of radiographic changes in skull base patients treated with protons. METHODS: Clinical treatment plans of 45 patients were recalculated with Monte Carlo tool FRED. Radiographic changes (i.e. edema and/or necrosis) were identified by MRI. Dosimetric parameters for cRBE and vRBE were computed. Biological margin extension and voxel-based analysis were employed looking for association of DRBE(vRBE) and LETd with brain edema and/or necrosis. RESULTS: When using vRBE, Dmax in the brain was above the highest dose limits for 38% of patients, while such limit was never exceeded assuming cRBE. Similar values of Dmax were observed in necrotic regions, brain and temporal lobes. Most of the brain necrosis was in proximity to the PTV. The voxel-based analysis did not show evidence of an association with high LETd values. CONCLUSIONS: When looking at standard dosimetric parameters, the higher dose associated with vRBE seems to be responsible for an enhanced risk of radiographic changes. However, as revealed by a voxel-based analysis, the large inter-patient variability hinders the identification of a clear effect for high LETd.

Harmonization of proton treatment planning for head and neck cancer using pencil beam scanning: first report of the IPACS collaboration group.

Background and purpose: A collaborative network between proton therapy (PT) centres in Trento in Italy, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic and Sweden (IPACS) was founded to implement trials and harmonize PT. This is the first report of IPACS with the aim to show the level of harmonization that can be achieved for proton therapy planning of head and neck (sino-nasal) cancer.Methods: CT-data sets of five patients were included. During several face-to-face and online meetings, a common treatment planning protocol was developed. Each centre used its own treatment planning system (TPS) and planning approach with some restrictions specified in the treatment planning protocol. In addition, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photon plans were created.Results: For CTV1, the average Dmedian was 59.3 ± 2.4 Gy(RBE) for protons and 58.8 ± 2.0 Gy(RBE) for VMAT (aim was 56 Gy(RBE)). For CTV2, the average Dmedian was 71.2 ± 1.0 Gy(RBE) for protons and 70.6 ± 0.4 Gy(RBE) for VMAT (aim was 70 Gy(RBE)). The average D2% for the spinal cord was 25.1 ± 8.5 Gy(RBE) for protons and 47.6 ± 1.4 Gy(RBE) for VMAT. The average D2% for chiasm was 46.5 ± 4.4 Gy(RBE) for protons and 50.8 ± 1.4 Gy(RBE) for VMAT, respectively. Robust evaluation was performed and showed the least robust plans for plans with a low number of beams.Discussion: In conclusion, several influences on harmonization were identified: adherence/interpretation to/of the protocol, available technology, experience in treatment planning and use of different beam arrangements. In future, all OARs that should be included in the optimization need to be specified in order to further harmonize treatment planning.

Application of IMRT in adjuvant treatment of soft tissue sarcomas of the thigh-Preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Fracture of the femur is the most frequent late complication in patients with soft tissue sarcomas (STS) who receive external beam radiotherapy after limb-sparing surgery. AIM: To reduce the risk of bone fracture following radiotherapy of STS of the thigh, we minimized the dose to the femur and to surrounding normal tissues by applying intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We report preliminary results of post-surgery IMRT of the thigh in patients with STS in this extremity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 adult patients undergoing post-operative radiotherapy of STS of the thigh were treated using IMRT. Clinical IMRT plans with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and 3-phase three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) were designed to adequately treat the planning target volume and to spare the femur to the largest extent possible. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms were compared. RESULTS: For either technique, a comparable target coverage was achieved; however, target volume was better covered and critical structures were better spared in IMRT plans. Mean and maximum doses to OAR structures were also significantly reduced in the IMRT plans. On average, the mean dose to the femur in 3D-CRT plans was about two times higher than that in IMRT plans. CONCLUSION: Compared with 3D-CRT, the application of IMRT improves the dose distribution within the concave target volumes and reduces dose to the OAR structures without compromising target coverage.