Using a knowledge-based planning solution to select patients for proton therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient selection for proton therapy by comparing proton/photon treatment plans is time-consuming and prone to bias. RapidPlan™, a knowledge-based-planning solution, uses plan-libraries to model and predict organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume-histograms (DVHs). We investigated whether RapidPlan, utilizing an algorithm based only on photon beam characteristics, could generate proton DVH-predictions and whether these could correctly identify patients for proton therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: ModelPROT and ModelPHOT comprised 30 head-and-neck cancer proton and photon plans, respectively. Proton and photon knowledge-based-plans (KBPs) were made for ten evaluation-patients. DVH-prediction accuracy was analyzed by comparing predicted-vs-achieved mean OAR doses. KBPs and manual plans were compared using salivary gland and swallowing muscle mean doses. For illustration, patients were selected for protons if predicted ModelPHOT mean dose minus predicted ModelPROT mean dose (ΔPrediction) for combined OARs was ≥6Gy, and benchmarked using achieved KBP doses. RESULTS: Achieved and predicted ModelPROT/ModelPHOT mean dose R2 was 0.95/0.98. Generally, achieved mean dose for ModelPHOT/ModelPROT KBPs was respectively lower/higher than predicted. Comparing ModelPROT/ModelPHOT KBPs with manual plans, salivary and swallowing mean doses increased/decreased by <2Gy, on average. ΔPrediction≥6Gy correctly selected 4 of 5 patients for protons. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge-based DVH-predictions can provide efficient, patient-specific selection for protons. A proton-specific RapidPlan-solution could improve results.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy for stereotactic spine radiotherapy: a planning study and early clinical data.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Outcomes for selected patients with spinal metastases may be improved by dose escalation using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). As target geometry is complex, we compared SBRT plans using volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (RapidArc, RA) and conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: RA and IMRT plans to deliver a fraction of 16 Gy to at least 90% of planning target volume (PTV) were compared for PTV coverage, normal organ sparing and estimated delivery times. Group 1 consisted of PTVs to only vertebral body (n=3), while group 2 had PTVs encompassing the entire vertebra (n=4). Finally, RA delivery parameters in four patients were assessed. RESULTS: Both techniques delivered 16 Gy to a mean of 95% and 85% of the PTV in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Spinal cord sparing was comparable; mean V(10-partial cord) for RA and IMRT in group 1 was 3.6%, and was 9.4% versus 11.5%, respectively, in group 2. Estimated mean treatment times for RA with 2-3 arcs and IMRT were comparable. Clinical RA beam-on times ranged from 11 to 15.4 min. CONCLUSIONS: Both RA and conventional IMRT plans deliver high quality vertebral SBRT, but plan quality was poorer when the PTV consisted of the entire vertebra.