Survival outcomes and toxicity of adjuvant immunotherapy after definitive concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam radiation therapy for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant immunotherapy (IO) following concurrent chemotherapy and photon radiation therapy confers an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with inoperable locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (LA-NSCLC); however, outcomes of adjuvant IO after concurrent chemotherapy with proton beam therapy (CPBT) are unknown. We investigated OS and toxicity after CPBT with adjuvant IO versus CPBT alone for inoperable LA-NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 354 patients with LA-NSCLC who were prospectively treated with CPBT with or without adjuvant IO from 2009 to 2021. Optimal variable ratio propensity score matching (PSM) matched CPBT with CPBT + IO patients. Survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated the effect of IO on disease outcomes. RESULTS: Median age was 70 years; 71 (20%) received CPBT + IO and 283 (80%) received CPBT only. After PSM, 71 CPBT patients were matched with 71 CPBT + IO patients. Three-year survival rates for CPBT + IO vs CPBT were: OS 67% vs 30% (P < 0.001) and PFS 59% vs 35% (P = 0.017). Three-year LRFS (P = 0.137) and DMFS (P = 0.086) did not differ. Receipt of adjuvant IO was a strong predictor of OS (HR 0.40, P = 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.56, P = 0.030), but not LRFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.121) or DMFS (HR 0.61, P = 0.136). There was an increased incidence of grade ≥3 esophagitis in the CPBT-only group (6% CPBT + IO vs 17% CPBT, P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: This study, one of the first to investigate CPBT followed by IO for inoperable LA-NSCLC, showed that IO conferred survival benefits with no increased rates of toxicity.

Stereotactic body proton therapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer - Technical challenges and solutions: The MD Anderson experience.

Our randomized clinical study comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was closed prematurely owing to poor enrollment, largely because of lack of volumetric imaging and difficulty in obtaining insurance coverage for the SBPT group. In this article, we describe technology improvements in our new proton therapy center, particularly in image guidance with cone beam CT (CBCT) and CT on rail (CTOR), as well as motion management with real-time gated proton therapy (RGPT) and optical surface imaging. In addition, we have a treatment planning system that provides better treatment plan optimization and more accurate dose calculation. We expect to re-start the SBPT program, including for early stage NSCLC as well as for other disease sites soon after starting patient treatment at our new proton therapy center.

A deep learning-based approach for statistical robustness evaluation in proton therapy treatment planning: a feasibility study.

Objective. Robustness evaluation is critical in particle radiotherapy due to its susceptibility to uncertainties. However, the customary method for robustness evaluation only considers a few uncertainty scenarios, which are insufficient to provide a consistent statistical interpretation. We propose an artificial intelligence-based approach that overcomes this limitation by predicting a set of percentile dose values at every voxel and allows for the evaluation of planning objectives at specific confidence levels.Approach. We built and trained a deep learning (DL) model to predict the 5th and 95th percentile dose distributions, which corresponds to the lower and upper bounds of a two-tailed 90% confidence interval (CI), respectively. Predictions were made directly from the nominal dose distribution and planning computed tomography scan. The data used to train and test the model consisted of proton plans from 543 prostate cancer patients. The ground truth percentile values were estimated for each patient using 600 dose recalculations representing randomly sampled uncertainty scenarios. For comparison, we also tested whether a common worst-case scenario (WCS) robustness evaluation (voxel-wise minimum and maximum) corresponding to a 90% CI could reproduce the ground truth 5th and 95th percentile doses.Main results. The percentile dose distributions predicted by DL yielded excellent agreements with the ground truth dose distributions, with mean dose errors below 0.15 Gy and average gamma passing rates (GPR) at 1 mm/1% above 93.9, which were substantially better than the WCS dose distributions (mean dose error above 2.2 Gy and GPR at 1 mm/1% below 54). We observed similar outcomes in a dose-volume histogram error analysis, where the DL predictions generally yielded smaller mean errors and standard deviations than the WCS evaluation doses.Significance. The proposed method produces accurate and fast predictions (∼2.5 s for one percentile dose distribution) for a given confidence level. Thus, the method has the potential to improve robustness evaluation.

Adaptation and dosimetric commissioning of a synchrotron-based proton beamline for FLASH experiments.

Objective. Irradiation with ultra-high dose rates (>40 Gy s-1), also known as FLASH irradiation, has the potential to shift the paradigm of radiation therapy because of its reduced toxicity to normal tissues compared to that of conventional irradiations. The goal of this study was to (1) achieve FLASH irradiation conditions suitable for pre-clinicalin vitroandin vivobiology experiments using our synchrotron-based proton beamline and (2) commission the FLASH irradiation conditions achieved.Approach. To achieve these suitable FLASH conditions, we made a series of adaptations to our proton beamline, including modifying the spill length and size of accelerating cycles, repurposing the reference monitor for dose control, and expanding the field size with a custom double-scattering system. We performed the dosimetric commissioning with measurements using an Advanced Markus chamber and EBT-XD films as well as with Monte Carlo simulations.Main results. Through adaptations, we have successfully achieved FLASH irradiation conditions, with an average dose rate of up to 375 Gy s-1. The Advanced Markus chamber was shown to be appropriate for absolute dose calibration under our FLASH conditions with a recombination factor ranging from 1.002 to 1.006 because of the continuous nature of our synchrotron-based proton delivery within a spill. Additionally, the absolute dose measured using the Advanced Markus chamber and EBT-XD films agreed well, with average and maximum differences of 0.32% and 1.63%, respectively. We also performed a comprehensive temporal analysis for FLASH spills produced by our system, which helped us identify a unique relationship between the average dose rate and the dose in our FLASH irradiation.Significance.We have established a synchrotron-based proton FLASH irradiation platform with accurate and precise dosimetry that is suitable for pre-clinical biology experiments. The unique time structure of the FLASH irradiation produced by our synchrotron-based system may shed new light onto the mechanism behind the FLASH effect.

Proton Therapy for HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancers of the Head and Neck: a De-Intensification Strategy.

OPINION STATEMENT: The rise in the incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC), the relatively young age at which it is diagnosed, and its favorable prognosis necessitate the use of treatment techniques that reduce the likelihood of side effects during and after curative treatment. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is a form of radiotherapy that de-intensifies treatment through dose de-escalation to normal tissues without compromising dose to the primary tumor and involved, regional lymph nodes. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that HPV-positive squamous cell carcinoma is more sensitive to proton radiation than is HPV-negative squamous cell carcinoma. Retrospective studies comparing intensity-modulated photon (X-ray) radiotherapy to IMPT for OPC suggest comparable rates of disease control and lower rates of pain, xerostomia, dysphagia, dysgeusia, gastrostomy tube dependence, and osteoradionecrosis with IMPT-all of which meaningfully affect the quality of life of patients treated for HPV-associated OPC. Two phase III trials currently underway-the "Randomized Trial of IMPT versus IMRT for the Treatment of Oropharyngeal Cancer of the Head and Neck" and the "TOxicity Reduction using Proton bEam therapy for Oropharyngeal cancer (TORPEdO)" trial-are expected to provide prospective, level I evidence regarding the effectiveness of IMPT for such patients.

Intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer reduces rates of late xerostomia.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine rates of xerostomia after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) and identify dosimetric factors associated with xerostomia risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with OPC who received IMRT (n = 429) or IMPT (n = 103) from January 2011 through June 2015 at a single institution were studied retrospectively. Every 3 months after treatment, each patient completed an eight-item self-reported xerostomia-specific questionnaire (XQ; summary XQ score, 0-100). An XQ score of 50 was selected as the demarcation value for moderate-severe (XQs ≥ 50) and no-mild (XQs < 50) xerostomia. The mean doses and percent volumes of organs at risk receiving various doses (V5-V70) were extracted from the initial treatment plans. The dosimetric variables and xerostomia risk were compared using an independent-sample t-test or chi-square test. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 36.2 months. The proportions of patients with moderate-severe xerostomia were similar in the two treatment groups up to 18 months after treatment. However, moderate-severe xerostomia was less common in the IMPT group than in the IMRT group at 18-24 months (6% vs. 20%; p = 0.025) and 24-36 months (6% vs. 20%; p = 0.01). During the late xerostomia period (24-36 months), high dose/volume exposures (V25-V70) in the oral cavity were associated with high proportions of patients with moderate-severe xerostomia (all p < 0.05), but dosimetric variables regarding the salivary glands were not associated with late xerostomia. CONCLUSION: IMPT was associated with less late xerostomia than was IMRT in OPC patients. Oral cavity dosimetric variables were related to the occurrence of late xerostomia.

Report of Task Group 201 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Quality management of external beam therapy data transfer.

With the advancement of data-intensive technologies, such as image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the amount and complexity of data to be transferred between clinical subsystems have increased beyond the reach of manual checking. As a result, unintended treatment deviations (e.g., dose errors) may occur if the treatment system is not closely monitored by a comprehensive data transfer quality management program (QM). This report summarizes the findings and recommendations from the task group (TG) on quality assurance (QA) of external beam treatment data transfer (TG-201), with the aim to assist medical physicists in designing their own data transfer QM. As a background, a section of this report describes various models of data flow (distributed data repositories and single data base systems) and general data test characteristics (data integrity, interpretation, and consistency). Recommended tests are suggested based on the collective experience of TG-201 members. These tests are for the acceptance of, commissioning of, and upgrades to subsystems that store and/or modify clinical treatment data. As treatment complexity continues to evolve, we will need to do and know more about ensuring the quality of data transfers. The report concludes with the recommendation to move toward data transfer open standards compatibility and to develop tools that automate data transfer QA.

Clinical commissioning of intensity-modulated proton therapy systems: Report of AAPM Task Group 185.

Proton therapy is an expanding radiotherapy modality in the United States and worldwide. With the number of proton therapy centers treating patients increasing, so does the need for consistent, high-quality clinical commissioning practices. Clinical commissioning encompasses the entire proton therapy system's multiple components, including the treatment delivery system, the patient positioning system, and the image-guided radiotherapy components. Also included in the commissioning process are the x-ray computed tomography scanner calibration for proton stopping power, the radiotherapy treatment planning system, and corresponding portions of the treatment management system. This commissioning report focuses exclusively on intensity-modulated scanning systems, presenting details of how to perform the commissioning of the proton therapy and ancillary systems, including the required proton beam measurements, treatment planning system dose modeling, and the equipment needed.

Toxicity and Survival After Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Passive Scattering Proton Therapy for NSCLC.

OBJECTIVE: Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMPT) is dosimetrically superior to passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) for locally advanced NSCLC (LA-NSCLC), direct comparisons of clinical outcomes are lacking. Here, we compare toxicity profiles and clinical outcomes after IMPT versus PSPT for LA-NSCLC. METHODS: This is a nonrandomized, comparative study of two independent cohorts with LA-NSCLC (stage II-IIIB, stage IV with solitary brain metastasis) treated with concurrent chemotherapy and proton beam therapy. Toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) and outcomes were prospectively collected as part of a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00915005) or prospective registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00991094). RESULTS: Of 139 patients, 86 (62%) received PSPT and 53 (38%) IMPT; median follow-up times were 23.9 and 29.0 months, respectively. IMPT delivered lower mean radiation doses to the lungs (PSPT 16.0 Gy versus IMPT 13.0 Gy, p < 0.001), heart (10.7 Gy versus 6.6 Gy, p = 0.004), and esophagus (27.4 Gy versus 21.8 Gy, p = 0.005). Consequently, the IMPT cohort had lower rates of grade 3 or higher pulmonary (17% versus 2%, p = 0.005) and cardiac (11% versus 0%, p = 0.01) toxicities. Six patients (7%) with PSPT and zero patients (0%) with IMPT experienced grade 4 or 5 toxicity. Lower rates of pulmonary (28% versus 3%, p = 0.006) and cardiac (14% versus 0%, p = 0.05) toxicities were observed in the IMPT cohort even after propensity score matching for baseline imbalances. There was also a trend toward longer median overall survival in the IMPT group (23.9 mo versus 36.2 mo, p = 0.09). No difference was found in the 3-year rates of local (25% versus 20%, p = 0.44), local-regional (29% versus 36%, p = 0.56) and distant (52% versus 51%, p = 0.71) recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT is associated with lower radiation doses to the lung, heart, and esophagus, and lower rates of grade 3 or higher cardiopulmonary toxicity; additional clinical studies will be needed to assess the potential differences in survival between the two techniques.

Effect of Deep Inspiration Breath Hold on Normal Tissue Sparing With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Proton Therapy for Mediastinal Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy delivered with deep-inspiration breath hold (IMRT-BH) provides favorable normal tissue dosimetric profiles when treating patients with mediastinal lymphoma. However, it is unclear if IMRT-BH plans are comparable to free breathing (FB) proton plans. We performed a retrospective, comparative dosimetric study between IMRT-BH and FB passive scatter proton therapy (P-FB) or intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT-FB). Hypothesizing that BH would provide superior normal tissue sparing when added to proton therapy, we also compared plans to passive scatter BH (P-BH). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 15 patients who received involved-site RT with "butterfly" IMRT-BH, 3 additional proton plans (P-FB, IMPT-FB, P-BH) were optimized to deliver 30.6 Gy/Gy relative biological effectiveness. Dosimetric variables (mean dose, V30, V25, V15, and V5) for organs at risk (OARs) were calculated and compared using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 57 studied OAR parameters, IMRT-BH plans were comparable in 37 (65%) parameters with P-FB plans, 32 (56%) of IMPT-FB parameters, and 30 (53%) of P-BH parameters. Doses to breasts were generally equivalent among plans while esophageal dosing was worse with IMRT-BH. Mean doses and V5 of the total lung and heart were the highest with IMRT-BH; however, IMRT-BH resulted in comparable coronary and superior lung V30 relative to proton plans. The addition of BH with proton therapy resulted in the greatest lung sparing, with mean lung dose reductions of 11% to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of BH with IMRT reduces the disparity in OAR doses with equivalence achieved in nearly two-thirds of OAR metrics compared with P-FB and 50% compared with IMPT-BH. Because each modality exhibited unique benefits, personalization of modality selection is recommended. Proton therapy via BH provides additional benefits in heart and lung sparing.

Evaluation of the high definition field of view option of a large-bore computed tomography scanner for radiation therapy simulation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT) scanning is the basis for radiation treatment planning, but the 50-cm standard scanning field of view (sFOV) may be too small for imaging larger patients. We evaluated the 65-cm high-definition (HD) FOV of a large-bore CT scanner for CT number accuracy, geometric distortion, image quality degradation, and dosimetric accuracy of photon treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT number accuracy was tested by placing two 16-cm acrylic phantoms on either side of a 40-cm phantom to simulate a large patient extending beyond the 50-cm-diameter standard scanning FOV. Dosimetric accuracy was tested using anthropomorphic pelvis and thorax phantoms, with additional acrylic body parts on either side of the phantoms. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy beams (a 15-MV and a 6-MV) were used to cover the planning target volumes. Two-dimensional dose distributions were evaluated with GAFChromic film and point dose accuracy was checked with multiple thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) capsules placed in the phantoms. Image quality was tested by placing an American College of Radiology accreditation phantom inside the 40-cm phantom. RESULTS: The HD FOV showed substantial changes in CT numbers, with differences of 314 HU-725 HU at different density levels. The volume of the body parts extending into the HD FOV was distorted. However, TLD-reported doses for all PTVs agreed within ± 3%. Dose agreement in organs at risk were within the passing criteria, and the gamma index pass rate was >97%. Image quality was degraded. CONCLUSIONS: The HD FOV option is adequate for RT simulation and met accreditation standards, although care should be taken during contouring because of reduced image quality.

Proton and photon radiosensitization effects of niraparib, a PARP-1/-2 inhibitor, on human head and neck cancer cells.

BACKGROUND: Combining photon or proton radiotherapy with targeted therapy shows promise for head and neck cancer (HNSCC). The poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase-1/2 inhibitor niraparib targets DNA damage repair (DDR). We evaluated the effects of niraparib in combination with photons or protons, and its effects on the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons, in human HNSCC cell lines. METHODS: Radiosensitivity was assessed and RBE was calculated with clonogenic survival assays; unrepaired DNA double-strand breaks were evaluated using immunocytochemical analysis of 53BP1 foci. RESULTS: Niraparib reduced colony formation in two of the four cell lines tested (P < .05), enhanced radiosensitivity in all four cell lines, delayed DDR (P < .05), and increased proton vs photon RBE. CONCLUSION: Niraparib enhanced the sensitivity of four HNSCC cell lines to both photons and protons and increased the RBE of protons, possibly by inhibiting DDR. Niraparib may enhance the effectiveness of both photon and proton radiotherapy for patients with HNSCC.

Lyman-Kutcher-Burman normal tissue complication probability modeling for radiation-induced esophagitis in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving proton radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To develop and test an Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model to predict radiation-induced esophagitis (RE) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving passive-scattering proton therapy (PSPT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 328 NSCLC patients receiving PSPT at our institution. Esophagitis severity was graded by physicians according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0, and the primary endpoint was grade ≥2 RE within 6 months from the first treatment. LKB model parameters (n, m, and TD50) were determined using maximum likelihood estimation. Overall performance of the model was quantified by Nagelkerke's R2 and the scaled Brier score. Discriminative ability was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Bootstrap internal validation was performed to assess the model uncertainty and generalizability. RESULTS: Grade 2-3 RE was observed in 136 (41.5%) patients, and no grade 4-5 RE was reported. The optimal LKB parameters were: n = 0.24, m = 0.51, and TD50 = 44.83 Gy (relative biological effectiveness). The optimism-corrected AUC was 0.783, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed significant agreement between predicted and observed morbidity. Bootstrap validation verified that the model was robust to similar future populations. CONCLUSION: Our LKB NTCP model to predict grade ≥2 RE in NSCLC patients who received PSPT showed good predictive performance and robustness to similar future populations, and a smaller volume effect than the previously observed in photon-treated populations. External validation of the model is warranted.

Multiple-CT optimization: An adaptive optimization method to account for anatomical changes in intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancers.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether multiple-CT (MCT) optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could improve plan robustness to anatomical changes and therefore reduce the additional need for adaptive planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients with head and neck cancer who underwent IMPT were included in this retrospective study. Each patient had primary planning CT (PCT), a first adaptive planning CT (ACT1), and a second adaptive planning CT (ACT2). Selective robust IMPT plans were generated using each CT data set (PCT, ACT1, and ACT2). Moreover, a MCT optimized plan was generated using the PCT and ACT1 data sets together. Dose distributions optimized using each of the four plans (PCT, ACT1, ACT2, and MCT plans) were re-calculated on ACT2 data. The doses to the target and to organs at risk were compared between optimization strategies. RESULTS: MCT plans for all patients met all target dose and organs-at-risk criteria for all three CT data sets. Target dose and organs-at-risk dose for PCT and ACT1 plans re-calculated on ACT2 data set were compromised, indicating the need for adaptive planning on ACT2 if PCT or ACT1 plans were used. The D98% of CTV1 and CTV3 of MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 were both above the coverage criteria. The CTV2 coverage of the MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 was worse than ACT2 plan. The MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 data set had lower chiasm, esophagus, and larynx doses than did PCT, ACT1, or ACT2 plans re-calculated on ACT2 data set. CONCLUSIONS: MCT optimization can improve plan robustness toward anatomical change and may reduce the number of plan adaptation for head and neck cancers.

Proton therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: the road ahead.

Proton therapy is an evolving radiotherapy modality with indication for numerous cancer types. With the benefits of reducing dose and sparing normal tissue, protons offer a clear physical and dosimetric advantage over photon radiotherapy for many patients. However, its impact on one type of disease, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), is still not fully understood. Our review aims to highlight the data for using proton therapy in NSCLC, with a focus on the clinical data-or lack thereof-supporting proton treatment for early and advanced stage disease. In evaluating these data, we consider how future directions and advances in proton technology give rise for hope in defining a role for protons in improving NSCLC outcomes. We close with considerations for next steps and the challenges ahead in using proton therapy for this unique patient population.

Hydrogel Spacer Reduces Rectal Dose during Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Dosimetric Analysis.

PURPOSE: Proton therapy for prostate cancer may reduce bowel dose and risk of bowel symptoms relative to photon-based methods. Here, we determined the effect of using a biodegradable, injectable hydrogel spacer on rectal dose on plans for treating prostate cancer with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) or passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pairs of IMPT and PSPT plans for 9 patients were created from fused computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging scans obtained before and after spacer injection. Calculated values of rectal V40, V60, V70, V80, and maximum dose (Dmax) were compared with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Displacements at the base (BP), midgland (MP), and apex (AP) of the prostate relative to the anterior rectal wall with the spacer in place were averaged for each patient and correlated with V70 by using linear regression models. RESULTS: The presence of a spacer reduced all dosimetric parameters for both PSPT and IMPT, with the greatest difference in V70, which was 81.1% lower for PSPT-with-spacer than for IMPT-without-spacer. Median displacements at BP, MP, and AP were 12 mm (range 7-19), 2 mm (range 0-4), and 1 mm (range 0-5) without the spacer and 19 mm (range 12-23), 10 mm (range 8-16), and 7 mm (range 2-12) with the spacer. Modest linear trends were noted between rectal V70 and displacement for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer. When displacement was ≥8 mm, V70 was ≤5.1% for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer. CONCLUSION: Use of biodegradable hydrogel spacers for prostate cancer treatment provides a significant reduction of radiation dose to the rectum with proton therapy. Significant reductions in rectal dose occurred in both PSPT and IMPT plans, with the greatest reduction for IMPT-with-spacer relative to PSPT alone. Prospective studies are ongoing to assess the clinical impact of reducing rectal dose with hydrogel spacers.

Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach.

PURPOSE: To assess the worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans with setup and range uncertainties and to test the hypothesis that the worst-case robust optimization strategies could cover most possible setup and range uncertainties in the real scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed the nominal and worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans of seven patients with head and neck cancer patients. To take uncertainties into account for the dose calculation, we performed a comprehensive simulation in which the dose was recalculated 625 times per given plan using Gaussian systematic setup and proton range uncertainties. Subsequently, based on the simulation results, we calculated the target coverage in all perturbation scenarios, as well as the ratios of target coverage located within the threshold of eight worst-case scenarios. We set the criteria for the optimized plan to be the ratios of 1) the dose delivered to 95% (D95%) of clinical target volumes 1 and 2 (CTV1 and CTV2) above 95% of the prescribed dose, and 2) the D95% of clinical target volume 3 (CTV3) above 90% of the prescribed dose in worst-case situations. RESULTS: The probability that the perturbed-dose indices of the CTVs in each scenario were within the worst-case scenario limits ranged from 89.51 to 91.22% for both the nominal and worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans. A quartile analysis showed that the selective robust optimization IMPT plans all had higher D95% values for CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 than did the nominal IMPT plans. CONCLUSIONS: The worst-case strategy for robust optimization is adequately models and covers most of the setup and range uncertainties for the IMPT treatment of head and neck patients in our center.

Effect of setup and inter-fraction anatomical changes on the accumulated dose in CT-guided breath-hold intensity modulated proton therapy of liver malignancies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of setup uncertainties including uncertainties between different breath holds (BH) and inter-fractional anatomical changes under CT-guided BH with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in patients with liver cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study considered 17 patients with liver tumors who underwent feedback-guided BH (FGBH) IMRT treatment with daily CT-on-rail imaging. Planning CT images were acquired at simulation using FGBH, and FGBH CT-on-rail images were also acquired prior to each treatment. Selective robust IMPT plans were generated using planning CT and re-calculated on each daily CT-on-rail image. Subsequently, the fractional doses were deformed and accumulated onto the planning CT according to the deformable image registration between daily and planning CTs. The doses to the target and organs at risk (OARs) were compared between IMRT, planned IMPT, and accumulated IMPT doses. RESULTS: For IMPT plans, the mean of D98% of CTV for all 17 patients was slightly reduced from the planned dose of 68.90 ±â€¯1.61 Gy to 66.48 ±â€¯1.67 Gy for the accumulated dose. The target coverage could be further improved by adjusting planning techniques. The dose-volume histograms of both planned and accumulated IMPT doses showed better sparing of OARs than that of the IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT with FGBH and CT-on-rail guidance is a robust treatment approach for liver tumor cases.

Phase 2 Study of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy for High-Risk, Medically Inoperable, Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the feasibility of conducting a randomized study to compare the toxicity and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) for high-risk, medically inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with medically inoperable NSCLC with high-risk features (centrally located or <5 cm T3 tumor or isolated lung parenchymal recurrences) were randomly assigned to SBRT or SBPT. Radiation dose was 50 Gy(relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) in 4 12.5-Gy(RBE) fractions prescribed to the planning target volume. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was given using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity modulated radiation therapy, and SBPT was given using passive scattering. Consistency in patient setup was ensured with on-board cone beam computed tomography for the SBRT group and with orthogonal X rays for the SBPT group. RESULTS: The study closed early owing to poor accrual, largely because of insurance coverage and lack of volumetric imaging in the SBPT group. Ultimately, 21 patients were enrolled, and 19 patients who received 50 Gy in 4 fractions were included for analysis (9 SBRT, 10 SBPT). At a median follow-up time of 32 months, median overall survival time was 28 months in the SBRT group and not reached in the SBPT group. Three-year overall survival was 27.8% and 90%, 3-year local control was 87.5% (8 of 9) and 90.0% (9 of 10), and 3-year regional control was 47.6% (5 of 9) and 90% (9 of 10) in the SBRT and SBPT groups, respectively. One patient in the SBPT group developed grade 3 skin fibrosis. No patients experienced grade 4/5 toxicity. CONCLUSION: Poor accrual, due to lack of volumetric imaging and insurance coverage for proton therapy, led to early closure of the trial and precluded accurate assessment of efficacy and toxicity. Comparable maturity of 2 radiation therapy modalities, particularly on-board imaging, and better insurance coverage for SBPT should be considered for future studies.