Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A dosimetric comparative study.

PURPOSE: To compare dosimetric performance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D-CTs. The dose-volume-histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Compared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax , heart Dmean , and lung V5 Gy[ RBE ] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean , but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax , lung Dmean , and V5 Gy[ RBE ] . Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered. CONCLUSIONS: Small-spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.

Dose delivery reproducibility for PBS proton treatment of breast cancer patients with and without mask immobilization.

BACKGROUND: Setup reproducibility of the tissue in the proton beam path is critical in maintaining the planned clinical target volume (CTV) dose coverage and sparing the organs at risk (OAR). In this study, we retrospectively evaluated radiation therapy dose reproducibility for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatment of breast cancer patients with and without mask immobilization. METHODS: Ninety-four patients treated between January 2019 and September 2022 with at least one verification CT scan (V-CT) in treatment position were included for this study. All patients were set up with arms up using the Orfit AIO patient positioning system, with (69 patients) or without (25 patients) mask immobilization in chin, neck, shoulder, upper arm, and chest areas. Two to three enface or near enface single field uniform dose PBS beams were optimized using a commercial treatment planning system. Prescription doses were 25 to 60 GyRBE in 5 to 45 fractions. Treatment plan doses re-calculated on V-CTs were compared to the corresponding planned doses. Cumulative doses were also calculated for patients with at least 3 V-CTs by deform and weighted sum doses from V-CTs to corresponding P-CTs. CTV D95%, ipsilateral-lung V40%, esophagus D0.01cc, and heart mean dose were evaluated and reported as percentages of prescription doses. Differences were large dose deteriorations (LDD) if: (1) CTV (V-CT/cumulative D95%) - (Planned D95%) < - 5%; or (2) Ipsilateral-lung (V-CT/cumulative V40%) - (Planned V40%) > 5%; or (3) Esophagus (V-CT/cumulative D0.01cc) - (Planned D0.01cc) > 10%; or (4) Heart (V-CT/cumulative mean) - (Planned mean) > 1.5%. RESULTS: On average, V-CT/cumulative and planned CTV/OAR dose parameter differences were less than 2.2%/1.7% and 3.4%/3.7% for masked and maskless patients, respectively. The percentages of patients with at least one CTV or OAR V-CT/cumulative dose LDD were 20.3%/25.0% and 72.0%/54.0% for masked and maskless patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On average, masked/maskless setups achieved delivered and planned CTV/OAR dose parameters agreed within 2.2%/3.7% for PBS treatment of breast cancer patients in this study. Maskless patients had higher rate of CTV/OAR LDDs compared to masked patients. Dosimetric differences large enough to raise clinical concerns in either group were able to be addressed with replannings.