Simultaneous Multiple Liver Metastasis Treated with Pencil Beam Proton Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT).

Compared with photon stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans that may have to use many more penetrating x-ray beams for each isocenter, proton SBRT with ultrahypofractionated doses use fewer beam angles and offer significantly reduced low-dose radiation bath to normal liver tissue. We demonstrate techniques to deliver safe and effective proton SBRT, where planning and organ motion complexity further increased with multiple liver lesions. For treatment planning, we recommend robust and logical beam angles, avoiding devices and encouraging entry perpendicular to the dominant motion, as well as volumetric repainting to mitigate the interplay effect to clinically acceptable levels. This report highlights the significant technical challenges with ultrahypofractionated proton pencil beam scanning liver therapy, how they are managed, and the effectiveness of this treatment.

A Probability-Based Investigation on the Setup Robustness of Pencil-beam Proton Radiation Therapy for Skull-Base Meningioma.

INTRODUCTION: The intracranial skull-base meningioma is in proximity to multiple critical organs and heterogeneous tissues. Steep dose gradients often result from avoiding critical organs in proton treatment plans. Dose uncertainties arising from setup errors under image-guided radiation therapy are worthy of evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with skull-base meningioma were retrospectively identified and planned with proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) single-field uniform dose (SFUD) and multifield optimization (MFO) techniques. The setup uncertainties were assigned a probability model on the basis of prior published data. The impact on the dose distribution from nominal 1-mm and large, less probable setup errors, as well as the cumulative effect, was analyzed. The robustness of SFUD and MFO planning techniques in these scenarios was discussed. RESULTS: The target coverage was reduced and the plan dose hot spot increased by all setup uncertainty scenarios regardless of the planning techniques. For 1 mm nominal shifts, the deviations in clinical target volume (CTV) coverage D99% was -11 ± 52 cGy and -45 ± 147 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans. The setup uncertainties affected the organ at risk (OAR) dose both positively and negatively. The statistical average of the setup uncertainties had <100 cGy impact on the plan qualities for all patients. The cumulative deviations in CTV D95% were 1 ± 34 cGy and -7 ± 18 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans. CONCLUSION: It is important to understand the impact of setup uncertainties on skull-base meningioma, as the tumor target has complex shape and is in proximity to multiple critical organs. Our work evaluated the setup uncertainty based on its probability distribution and evaluated the dosimetric consequences. In general, the SFUD plans demonstrated more robustness than the MFO plans in target coverages and brainstem dose. The probability-weighted overall effect on the dose distribution is small compared to the dosimetric shift during single fraction.

Influence of intravenous contrast agent on dose calculation in proton therapy using dual energy CT.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of an intravenous (IV) contrast agent on proton therapy dose calculation using dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). Two DECT methods are considered. The first one, [Formula: see text], attempts to accurately predict the proton stopping powers relative to water (SPR) of contrast enhanced (CE) DECT images, while the second generates a virtual non-contrast (VNC) volume that can be processed as a native non-contrast (NC) one. Both methods are compared against single-energy computed tomography (SECT). The accuracy of SPR predicted for different concentrations of IV contrast diluted in water is first evaluated using simulated data. Results then are validated in an experimental set-up comparing SPR predictions for both NC and CE images to measurements made with a multi-layer ionisation chamber (MLIC). Finally, the impact of IV contrast on dose calculation using both SECT and DECT is evaluated for one liver and one head and neck patient. Using simulated data, DECT is shown to be less sensitive to the presence of IV contrast than SECT, although the performance of the [Formula: see text] method is sensitive to the level of beam hardening considered. For different concentrations of IV contrast diluted in water, experimental MLIC measurement of SPR agrees with DECT predictions within 3% while SECT introduce errors above 20%. This error in the SPR value results in a range error of up to 3.2 mm (2.6%) for proton beams calculated on SECT CE patient images. The error is reduced below 1 mm using DECT with the [Formula: see text] and VNC methods. Globally, it is observed that the influence of IV contrast on proton therapy dose calculation is mitigated using DECT over SECT. In patient anatomies, the VNC approach provides the best agreement with the reference dose distribution.

Efficient double-scattering proton therapy with a patient-specific bolus.

PURPOSE: Passive scattering proton radiotherapy utilizes beam-specific compensators to shape the dose to the distal end of the tumor target. These compensators typically require therapists to enter the treatment room to mount between beams. This study investigates a novel approach that utilizes a single patient-specific bolus to accomplish the role of multi-field compensators to improve the efficiency of the treatment delivery. METHODS: Ray-tracing from the proton virtual source was used to convert the beam-specific compensators (mounted on the gantry nozzle) into an equivalent bolus thickness on the patient surface. The field bolus contours were combined to create a single bolus. A 3D acrylic bolus was milled for a head phantom. The dose distribution of the compensator plan was compared to the bolus plan using 3D Gamma analysis and film measurements. Boluses for two clinical patients were also designed. RESULTS: The calculated phantom dose distribution of the original proton compensator plan was shown to be equivalent to the plan with the surface bolus. Film irradiations with the proton bolus also confirmed the dosimetric equivalence of the two techniques. The dose distribution equivalency of the bolus plans for the clinical patients were demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: We presented a novel approach that uses a single patient-specific bolus to replace patient compensators during passive scattering proton delivery. This approach has the potential to reduce the treatment time, the compensator manufacturing costs, the risk of potential collision between the compensator and the patient/couch, and the waste of compensator material.

Stereotactic body proton therapy for liver tumors: Dosimetric advantages and their radiobiological and clinical implications.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Photon Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for primary and metastatic tumors of the liver is challenging for larger lesions. An in silico comparison of paired SBRT and Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy (SBPT) plans was performed to understand the potential advantages of SBPT as a function of tumor size and location. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Theoretical tumor volumes with maximum diameter of 1-10 cm were contoured in the dome, right inferior, left medial, and central locations. SBRT and SBPT plans were generated to deliver 50 Gy in 5 fractions, max dose <135%. When organs-at-risk (OAR) constraints were exceeded, hypothetical plans (not clinically acceptable) were generated for comparison. Liver normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were applied to evaluate differences between treatment modalities. RESULTS: SBRT and SBPT were able to meet target goals and OAR constraints for lesions up to 7 cm and 9 cm diameter, respectively. SBPT plans resulted in a higher integral gross target dose for all lesions up to 7 cm (mean dose 57.8 ±â€¯2.3 Gy to 64.1 ±â€¯2.2 Gy, p < 0.01). Simultaneously, SBPT spared dose to the uninvolved liver in all locations (from 11.5 ±â€¯5.3 Gy to 8.6 ±â€¯4.4 Gy, p < 0.01), resulting in lower NTCP particularly for larger targets in the dome and central locations. SBPT also spared duodenal dose across all sizes and positions (from 7.3 ±â€¯1.1 Gy to 1.1 ±â€¯0.3 Gy, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The main advantages of SBPT over SBRT is meeting plan goals and constrains for larger targets, particularly dome and central locations, and sparing dose to uninvolved liver. For such patients, SBPT may allow improvements in tumor control and treatment safety.

Range optimization for mono- and bi-energetic proton modulated arc therapy with pencil beam scanning.

The development of rotational proton therapy plans based on a pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) system has been limited, among several other factors, by the energy-switching time between layers, a system-dependent parameter that ranges between a fraction of a second and several seconds. We are investigating mono- and bi-energetic rotational proton modulated arc therapy (PMAT) solutions that would not be affected by long energy switching times. In this context, a systematic selection of the optimal proton energy for each arc is vital. We present a treatment planning comparison of four different range selection methods, analyzing the dosimetric outcomes of the resulting treatment plans created with the ranges obtained. Given the patient geometry and arc definition (gantry and couch trajectories, snout elevation) our in-house treatment planning system (TPS) FoCa was used to find the maximum, medial and minimum water-equivalent thicknesses (WETs) of the target viewed from all possible field orientations. Optimal ranges were subsequently determined using four methods: (1) by dividing the max/min WET interval into equal steps, (2) by taking the average target midpoints from each field, (3) by taking the average WET of all voxels from all field orientations, and (4) by minimizing the fraction of the target which cannot be reached from any of the available angles. After the range (for mono-energetic plans) or ranges (for bi-energetic plans) were selected, the commercial clinical TPS in use in our institution (Varian Eclipse™) was used to produce the PMAT plans using multifield optimization. Linear energy transfer (LET) distributions of all plans were also calculated using FoCa and compared among the different methods. Mono- and bi-energetic PMAT plans, composed of a single 180° arc, were created for two patient geometries: a C-shaped target located in the mediastinal area of a thoracic tissue-equivalent phantom and a small brain tumor located directly above the brainstem. All plans were optimized using the same procedure to (1) achieve target coverage, (2) reduce dose to OAR and (3) limit dose hot spots in the target. Final outcomes were compared in terms of the resulting dose and LET distributions. Data shows little significant differences among the four studied methods, with superior results obtained with mono-energetic plans. A streamlined systematic method has been implemented in an in-house TPS to find the optimal range to maximize target coverage with rotational mono- or bi-energetic PBS rotational plans by minimizing the fraction of the target that cannot be reached by any direction.