Interfractional robustness of scanning carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: An analysis based on dose distribution from daily in-room CT images.

PURPOSE: We analyzed interfractional robustness of scanning carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for prostate cancer based on the dose distribution using daily in-room computed tomography (CT) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 11 consecutive patients treated with scanning CIRT for localized prostate cancer in our hospital between December 2015 and January 2016. In-room CT images were taken under treatment conditions in every treatment session. The dose distribution on each in-room CT image was recalculated, while retaining the pencil beam arrangement of the initial treatment plan. Then, the dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters including the percentage of the clinical target volume (CTV) with 95% and 90% of the prescribed dose area (V95% of CTV, V90% of CTV) and V80% of rectum were calculated. The acceptance criteria for the CTV and rectum were set at V95% of CTV ≥95%, V90% of CTV ≥98%, and V80% of rectum < 10 ml. RESULTS: V95% of CTV, V90% of CTV, and V80% of rectum for the reproduced plans were 98.8 ± 3.49%, 99.5 ± 2.15%, and 4.39 ± 3.96 ml, respectively. Acceptance of V95% of CTV, V90% of CTV, and V80% of rectum was obtained in 123 (94%), 125 (95%) and 117 sessions (89%), respectively. Acceptance of the mean dose of V95% of CTV, V90% of CTV, and V80% of rectum for each patient was obtained in 10 (91%), 10 (91%), and 11 patients (100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated acceptable interfractional robustness based on the dose distribution in scanning CIRT for prostate cancer.

Effectiveness of CT-image guidance in proton therapy for liver cancer and the importance of daily dose monitoring for tumors and organs at risk.

BACKGROUND: It is important to have precise image guidance throughout proton therapy in order to take advantage of the therapy's physical selectivity. PURPOSE: We evaluated the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT)-image guidance in proton therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by assessing daily proton dose distributions. The importance of daily CT image-guided registration and daily proton dose monitoring for tumors and organs at risk (OARs) was investigated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using 570 sets of daily CT (dCT) images throughout whole treatment fractions for 38 HCC patients who underwent passive scattering proton therapy with either a 66 cobalt gray equivalent (GyE)/10 fractions (n = 19) or 76 GyE/20 fractions (n = 19) protocol. The actual daily delivered dose distributions were estimated by forward calculation using the dCT sets, their corresponding treatment plans, and the recorded daily couch correction information. We then evaluated the daily changes of the dose indices D99% , V30GyE , and Dmax for the tumor volumes, non-tumorous liver, and other OARs, that is, stomach, esophagus, duodenum, colon, respectively. Contours were created for all dCT sets. We validated the efficacy of the dCT-based tumor registrations (hereafter, "tumor registration") by comparing them with the bone registration and diaphragm registration as a simulation of the treatment based on the positioning using the conventional kV X-ray imaging. The dose distributions and the indices of three registrations were obtained by simulation using the same dCT sets. RESULTS: In the 66 GyE/10 fractions, the daily D99% value in both the tumor and diaphragm registrations agreed with the planned value with 3%-6% (SD), and the V30GyE value for the liver agreed within ±3%; the indices in the bone registration showed greater deterioration. Nevertheless, tumor-dose deterioration occurred in all registration methods for two cases due to daily changes of body shape and respiratory condition. In the 76 GyE/20 fractions, in particular for such a treatment that the dose constraints for the OARs have to be cared in the original planning, the daily D99% in the tumor registration was superior to that in the other registration (p < 0.001), indicating the effectiveness of the tumor registration. The dose constraints, set in the plan as the maximum dose for OARs (i.e., duodenum, stomach, colon, and esophagus) were maintained for 16 patients including seven treated with re-planning. For three patients, the daily Dmax increased gradually or changed randomly, resulting in an inter-fractional averaged Dmax higher than the constraints. The dose distribution would have been improved if re-planning had been conducted. The results of these retrospective analyses indicate the importance of daily dose monitoring followed by adaptive re-planning when needed. CONCLUSIONS: The tumor registration in proton treatment for HCC was effective to maintain the daily dose to the tumor and the dose constraints of OARs, particularly in the treatment where the maintenance for the dose constraints needs to be considered throughout the treatment. Nevertheless daily proton dose monitoring with daily CT imaging is important for more reliable and safer treatment.

Positioning accuracy and daily dose assessment for prostate cancer treatment using in-room CT image guidance at a proton therapy facility.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of CT image-guided proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer by analyzing the positioning uncertainty and assessing daily dose change due to anatomical variations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with prostate cancer were treated by opposed lateral proton beams based on a passive scattering method using an in-room CT image-guided system. The system employs a single couch for both CT scanning and beam delivery. The patient was positioned by matching the boundary between the prostate and the rectum's anterior region identified in the CT images to the corresponding boundary in the simulator images after bone matching. We acquired orthogonal kV x-ray images after couch movement and confirmed the body position by referring to the bony structure prior to treatment. In offline analyses, we contoured the targeted anatomical structures on 375 sets of daily in-room CT images for 10 patients. The uncertainty of the image-matching procedure was evaluated using the prostate contours and actual couch corrections. We also performed dose calculations using the same set of CT images, and evaluated daily change of dose-volume histograms (DVHs) to compare the effectiveness of the treatment using prostate matching to the bone-matching procedure. RESULTS: The isocenter shifts by prostate matching after bone matching were 0.5 ± 1.8 and -0.8 ± 2.6 mm along the superior-inferior (SI) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, respectively. The body movement errors (σ) after couch movement were 0.7, 0.5, and 0.3 mm along the lateral, SI and AP direction, respectively, for 30 patients. The estimated errors (σ) in the prostate matching were 1.0 and 1.3 mm, and, in conjunction with the movement errors, the total positioning uncertainty was estimated to be 1.0 and 1.4 mm along the SI and AP directions, respectively. Daily DVH analyses showed that in the prostate matching, 98.7% and 86.1% of the total 375 irradiations maintained a dose condition of V95%  > 95% for the prostate and a dose constraint of V77%  < 18% for the rectum, whereas 90.4% and 66.1% of the total irradiations did so when bone matching was used. The dose constraint of the rectum and dose coverage of the prostate were better maintained by prostate matching than bone matching (P < 0.001). The daily variation in the dose to the seminal vesicles (SVs) was large, and only 40% of the total irradiations maintained the initial planned values of V95% for high-risk treatment. Nevertheless, the deviations from the original value were -4 ± 7% and -5 ± 11% in the prostate and bone matching, respectively, and a better dose coverage of the SV was achieved by the prostate matching. CONCLUSION: The correction of repositioning along the AP and SI direction from conventional bone matching in CT image-guided proton therapy was found to be effective to maintain the dose constraint of the rectum and the dose coverage of the prostate. This work indicated that prostate cancer treatment by prostate matching using CT image guidance may be effective to reduce the rectal complications and achieve better tumor control of the prostate. However, an adaptive approach is desirable to maintain better dose coverage of the SVs.

Effects of organ motion on proton prostate treatments, as determined from analysis of daily CT imaging for patient positioning.

PURPOSE: We quantified interfractional movements of the prostate, seminal vesicles (SVs), and rectum during computed tomography (CT) image-guided proton therapy for prostate cancer and studied the range variation in opposed lateral proton beams. MATERIALS/METHODS: We analyzed 375 sets of daily CT images acquired throughout the proton therapy treatment of ten patients. We analyzed daily movements of the prostate, SVs, and rectum by simulating three image-matching strategies: bone matching, prostate center (PC) matching, and prostate-rectum boundary (PRB) matching. In the PC matching, translational movements of the prostate center were corrected after bone matching. In the PRB matching, we performed PC matching and correction along the anterior-posterior direction to match the boundary between the prostate and the rectum's anterior region. In each strategy, we evaluated systematic errors (Σ) and random errors (σ) by measuring the daily movements of certain points on each anatomic structure. The average positional deviations in millimeter of each point were determined by the Van Herk formula of 2.5Σ + 0.7σ. Using these positional deviations, we created planning target volumes of the prostate and SVs and analyzed the daily variation in the water equivalent length (WEL) from the skin surface to the target along the lateral beam directions using the density converted from the daily CT number. Based on this analysis, we designed prostate cancer treatment planning and evaluated the dose volume histograms (DVHs) for these strategies. RESULTS: The SVs' daily movements showed large variations over the superior-inferior direction, as did the rectum's anterior region. The average positional deviations of the prostate in the anterior, posterior, superior, inferior, and lateral sides (mm) in bone matching, PC matching, and PRB matching were (8.9, 9.8, 7.5, 3.6, 1.6), (5.6, 6.1, 3.5, 4.5, 1.9), and (8.6, 3.2, 3.5, 4.5, 1.9) (mm), respectively. Moreover, the ones of the SV tip were similarly (22.5, 15.5, 11.0, 7.6, 6.0), (11.8, 8.4, 7.8, 5.2, 6.3), and (9.9, 7.5, 7.8, 5.2, 6.3). PRB matching showed the smallest positional deviations at all portions except for the anterior portion of the prostate and was able to markedly reduce the positional deviations at the posterior portion. The averaged WEL variations at the distal and proximal sides of planning target volumes were estimated 7-9 mm and 4-6 mm, respectively, and showed the increasing of a few millimeters in PC and PRB matching compared to bone matching. In the treatment planning simulation, the DVH values of the rectum in PRB matching were reduced compared to those obtained with other matching strategies. CONCLUSION: The positional deviations for the prostate on the posterior side and the SVs were smaller by PRB matching than the other strategies and effectively reduced the rectal dose. 3D dose calculations indicate that PRB matching with CT image guidance may do a better job relative to other positioning methods to effectively reduce the rectal complications. The WEL variation was quite large, and the appropriate margin (approx. 10 mm) must be adapted to the proton range in an initial planning to maintain the coverage of target volumes throughout entire treatment.