Toward improved target conformity for two spot scanning proton therapy delivery systems using dynamic collimation.

PURPOSE: To quantify improvement in target conformity in brain and head and neck tumor treatments resulting from the use of a dynamic collimation system (DCS) with two spot scanning proton therapy delivery systems (universal nozzle, UN, and dedicated nozzle, DN) with median spot sizes of 5.2 and 3.2 mm over a range of energies from 100 to 230 MeV. METHODS: Uncollimated and collimated plans were calculated with both UN and DN beam models implemented within our in-house treatment planning system for five brain and ten head and neck datasets in patients previously treated with spot scanning proton therapy. The prescription dose and beam angles from the clinical plans were used for both the UN and DN plans. The average reduction of the mean dose to the 10-mm ring surrounding the target between the uncollimated and collimated plans was calculated for the UN and the DN. Target conformity was analyzed using the mean dose to 1-mm thickness rings surrounding the target at increasing distances ranging from 1 to 10 mm. RESULTS: The average reductions of the 10-mm ring mean dose for the UN and DN plans were 13.7% (95% CI: 11.6%-15.7%; p < 0.0001) and 11.5% (95% CI: 9.5%-13.5%; p < 0.0001) across all brain cases and 7.1% (95% CI: 4.4%-9.8%; p < 0.001) and 6.3% (95% CI: 3.7%-9.0%; p < 0.001), respectively, across all head and neck cases. The collimated UN plans were either more conformal (all brain cases and 60% of the head and neck cases) than or equivalent (40% of the head and neck cases) to the uncollimated DN plans. The collimated DN plans offered the highest conformity. CONCLUSIONS: The DCS added either to the UN or DN improved the target conformity. The DCS may be of particular interest for sites with UN systems looking for a more economical solution than upgrading the nozzle to improve the target conformity of their spot scanning proton therapy system.

Pencil-beam scanning proton therapy for anal cancer: a dosimetric comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy cures most patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma at the cost of significant treatment-related toxicities. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) reduces side effects compared to older techniques, but whether proton beam therapy (PBT) offers additional advantages is unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight patients treated with PBT for anal cancer were chosen for this study. We conducted detailed plan comparisons between pencil-beam scanning PBT via two posterior oblique fields and seven-field IMRT. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and plan delivery robustness was assessed via verification computed tomography (CT) scans obtained during treatment. RESULTS: Compared to IMRT, PBT reduced low dose radiation (≤ 30 Gy) to the small bowel, total pelvic bone marrow, external genitalia, femoral heads, and bladder (all p < 0.05) without compromising target coverage. For PBT versus IMRT, mean small bowel volume receiving ≥ 15 Gy (V15) was 81 versus 151 cm(3), mean external genitalia V20 was 14 versus 40%, and mean total pelvic bone marrow V15 was 66 versus 83% (all p = 0.008). The lumbosacral bone marrow dose was higher with PBT due to beam geometry. PBT was delivered with ≤ 1.3% interfraction deviation in the dose received by 98% of the clinical target volumes. CONCLUSION: Pencil-beam scanning PBT is clinically feasible and can be robustly delivered for anal cancer patients. Compared with IMRT, PBT reduces low dose radiation to important organs at risk in this population. While the clinical benefit of these differences remains to be shown, existing data suggest that limiting low dose to the small bowel and pelvic bone marrow may reduce treatment toxicity.

Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility.

BACKGROUND: This study compares target coverage robustness among proton therapy plans for prostate cancer patients treated with 2 laterally opposed fields delivered daily or, alternatively, every other day as single lateral fields, using uniform scanning (US), single-field uniform dose (SFUD), pencil beam scanning (PBS) optimized for uniform target coverage only, SFUD PBS optimized for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing (SFUD-opt), and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy underwent weekly verification computed tomographic (CT) scans. US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT treatment plans were created and recalculated on weekly verification scans evaluating 2-field daily and single-field target coverage and OAR constraints. RESULTS: The average (±standard deviation) planning target volume conformity index for US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT clinical plans was 0.53 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.05, 0.78 ± 0.04, and 0.78 ± 0.03, respectively. The average 2-field internal target volume (ITV) coverage was significantly higher for both US and SFUD when individually compared with SFUD-opt and IMPT. There was no significant difference between US and SFUD ITV coverage when comparing 2-field daily versus single-field daily delivery. The average single-field coverage was greatest using US and SFUD with 99% of the ITV being covered by 96.8% ± 0.9% and 96.7% ± 1.3%, respectively, compared with 95.5% ± 0.7% for SFUD-opt. There were no significant differences among the 4 plans regarding OAR dose constraints assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Pencil beam scanning techniques are more conformal than US and, when optimized only for uniform target coverage from each field, can be equally as robust relative to anatomic interfraction variations for prostate cancer patients treated with a single field per day technique. The SFUD-opt and IMPT involve highly modulated pencil beam spots and may be less robust to daily interfraction anatomic variations.

Comparison of secondary neutron dose in proton therapy resulting from the use of a tungsten alloy MLC or a brass collimator system.

PURPOSE: To apply the dual ionization chamber method for mixed radiation fields to an accurate comparison of the secondary neutron dose arising from the use of a tungsten alloy multileaf collimator (MLC) as opposed to a brass collimator system for defining the shape of a therapeutic proton field. METHODS: Hydrogenous and nonhydrogenous ionization chambers were constructed with large volumes to enable measurements of absorbed doses below 10(-4) Gy in mixed radiation fields using the dual ionization chamber method for mixed-field dosimetry. Neutron dose measurements were made with a nominal 230 MeV proton beam incident on a closed tungsten alloy MLC and a solid brass block. The chambers were cross-calibrated against a (60)Co-calibrated Farmer chamber in water using a 6 MV x-ray beam and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to account for variations in ionization chamber response due to differences in secondary neutron energy spectra. RESULTS: The neutron and combined proton plus γ-ray absorbed doses are shown to be nearly equivalent downstream from either a closed tungsten alloy MLC or a solid brass block. At 10 cm downstream from the distal edge of the collimating material the neutron dose from the closed MLC was (5.3 ± 0.4) × 10(- 5) Gy/Gy. The neutron dose with brass was (6.4 ± 0.7) × 10(- 5) Gy/Gy. Further from the secondary neutron source, at 50 cm, the neutron doses remain close for both the MLC and brass block at (6.9 ± 0.6) × 10(- 6) Gy/Gy and (6.3 ± 0.7) × 10(- 6) Gy/Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The dual ionization chamber method is suitable for measuring secondary neutron doses resulting from proton irradiation. The results of measurements downstream from a closed tungsten alloy MLC and a brass block indicate that, even in an overly pessimistic worst-case scenario, secondary neutron production in a tungsten alloy MLC leads to absorbed doses that are nearly equivalent to those seen from brass collimators. Therefore, the choice of tungsten alloy in constructing the leaves of a proton MLC is appropriate, and does not lead to a substantial increase in the secondary neutron dose to the patient compared to that generated in a brass collimator.