Dose evaluation of inter- and intra-fraction prostate motion in extremely hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton therapy for prostate cancer.

Inter- and intra-fractional prostate motion can deteriorate the dose distribution in extremely hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton therapy. We used verification CTs and prostate motion data calculated from 1024 intra-fractional prostate motion records to develop a voxel-wise based 4-dimensional method, which had a time resolution of 1 s, to assess the dose impact of prostate motion. An example of 100 fractional simulations revealed that motion had minimal impact on planning dose, the accumulated dose in 95 % of the scenarios fulfilled the clinical goals for target coverage (D95 > 37.5 Gy). This method can serve as a complementary measure in clinical setting to guarantee plan quality.

Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities.

BACKGROUND: Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times. PURPOSE: To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course. METHODS: For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia. RESULTS: The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2). CONCLUSIONS: Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.

Proton arc therapy increases the benefit of proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients in the model based clinic.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the model-based approach, patients qualify for proton therapy when the reduction in risk of toxicity (ΔNTCP) obtained with IMPT relative to VMAT is larger than predefined thresholds as defined by the Dutch National Indication Protocol (NIPP). Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging technology which has the potential to further decrease NTCPs compared to IMPT. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential impact of PAT on the number of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients that qualify for proton therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort of 223 OPC patients subjected to the model-based selection procedure was investigated. 33 (15%) patients were considered unsuitable for proton treatment before plan comparison. When IMPT was compared to VMAT for the remaining 190 patients, 148 (66%) patients qualified for protons and 42 (19%) patients did not. For these 42 patients treated with VMAT, robust PAT plans were generated. RESULTS: PAT plans provided better or similar target coverage compared to IMPT plans. In the PAT plans, integral dose was significantly reduced by 18% relative to IMPT plans and by 54% relative to VMAT plans. PAT decreased the mean dose to numerous organs-at-risk (OARs), further reducing NTCPs. The ΔNTCP for PAT relative to VMAT passed the NIPP thresholds for 32 out of the 42 patients treated with VMAT, resulting in 180 patients (81%) of the complete cohort qualifying for protons. CONCLUSION: PAT outperforms IMPT and VMAT, leading to a further reduction of NTCP-values and higher ΔNTCP-values, significantly increasing the percentage of OPC patients selected for proton therapy.

Clinical 3D/4D cumulative proton dose assessment methods for thoracic tumours with large motion.

PURPOSE: Despite the anticipated clinical benefits of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), plan robustness may be compromised due to its sensitivity to patient treatment uncertainties, especially for tumours with large motion. In this study, we investigated treatment course-wise plan robustness for intra-thoracic tumours with large motion comparing a 4D pre-clinical evaluation method (4DREM) to our clinical 3D/4D dose reconstruction and accumulation methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with large target motion (>10 mm) were treated with five times layered rescanned IMPT. The 3D-robust optimised plans were generated on the averaged planning 4DCT. Using multiple 4DCTs, treatment plan robustness was assessed on a weekly and treatment course-wise basis through the 3D robustness evaluation method (3DREM, based on averaged 4DCTs), the 4D robustness evaluation method (4DREM, including the time structure of treatment delivery and 4DCT phases) and 4D dose reconstruction and accumulation (4DREAL, based on fraction-wise information). RESULTS: Baseline target motion for all patients ranged from 11-17 mm. For the offline adapted course-wise dose assessment, adequate target dose coverage was found for all patients. The target volume receiving 95% of the prescription dose was consistent between methods with 16/20 patients showing differences < 1%. 4DREAL showed the highest target coverage (99.8 ± 0.6%, p < 0.001), while no differences were observed between 3DREM and 4DREM (99.3 ± 1.3% and 99.4 ± 1.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results show that intra-thoracic tumours can be adequately treated with IMPT in free breathing for target motion amplitudes up to 17 mm employing any of the accumulation methods. Anatomical changes, setup and range errors demonstrated a more severe impact on target coverage than motion in these patients treated with fractionated proton radiotherapy.

Automated Robust Planning for IMPT in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Using Machine Learning.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate an automated treatment planning method for robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for oropharyngeal carcinoma patients and to compare the results with manually optimized robust IMPT plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An atlas regression forest-based machine learning (ML) model for dose prediction was trained on CT scans, contours, and dose distributions of robust IMPT plans of 88 oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients. The ML model was combined with a robust voxel and dose volume histogram-based dose mimicking optimization algorithm for 21 perturbed scenarios to generate a machine-deliverable plan from the predicted dose distribution. Machine learning optimization (MLO) configuration was performed using a cross-validation approach with 3 × 8 tuning patients and comprised of adjustments to the mimicking optimization, to generate higher-quality MLO plans. Independent testing of the MLO algorithm was performed with another 25 patients. Plan quality of clinical and MLO plans was evaluated by the clinical target volume (D98% voxel-wise minimum dose >94%), organ at risk (OAR) doses, and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) (sum (Σ) of grade-2 and grade-3 dysphagia and xerostomia). RESULTS: Adequate robust target coverage was achieved in 24/25 clinical plans and in 23/25 MLO plans in the primary clinical target volume (CTV). In the elective CTV, 22/25 clinical plans and 24/25 MLO plans passed the robust target coverage evaluation threshold. The MLO average Σgrade 2 and Σgrade 3 NTCPs were comparable to the clinical plans (Σgrade 2 NTCPs: clinical 47.5% vs MLO 48.4%, Σgrade 3 NTCPs: clinical 11.9% vs MLO 12.3%). Significant increases in OAR average doses in MLO plans were found in the pharynx constrictor muscles (163 cGy, P = .002) and cervical esophagus (265 cGy, P = .002). The MLO plans were created within 45 minutes. CONCLUSION: This study showed that automated MLO planning can generate robustly optimized MLO plans with quality comparable to clinical plans in OPC patients.

Spot scanning proton arc therapy reduces toxicity in oropharyngeal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Proton arc technology has recently shown dosimetric gains for various treatment indications. The increased number of beams and energy layers (ELs) in proton arc plans, increases the degrees of freedom in plan optimization and thereby flexibility to spare dose in organs at risk (OARs). A relationship exists between dosimetric plan quality, delivery efficiency, the number of ELs -and beams in a proton arc plan. PURPOSE: This work aims to investigate the effect of the number of beams and ELs in a proton arc plan, on toxicity and delivery time for oropharyngeal cancer patients (OPC) selected for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) based on the Dutch model-based approach. METHODS: The EL reduction algorithm iteratively selects ELs from beams equidistantly spaced over a 360° arc. The beams in the final plan may contain multiple ELs, making them suited for static delivery on the studied treatment machine. The produced plans can therefore be called "step and shoot" proton arc plans. The number of beams and ELs were varied to determine the relationship with the planning cost function value, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and delivery time. Proton arc plans with robust target coverage and optimal energy layer reduction (ELR) settings to reduce NTCP, were generated for 10 OPC patients. Proton arc plans were compared to clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and IMPT plans in terms of integral dose, OAR dose, NTCP for xerostomia and dysphagia and delivery time. Furthermore, dose-weighted average linear energy transfer (LETd ) distributions were compared between the IMPT and proton arc plans. A dry run delivery of a plan containing 20 beams and 360 ELs was performed to evaluate delivery time and accuracy. RESULTS: We found 360 ELs distributed over 30 beams generated proton arc plans with near minimal expected plan toxicity. Relative to corresponding IMPT and VMAT plans, an average reduction of 21 ± 3% and 58 ± 10% in integral dose was observed. D m e a n $_{mean}$ was reduced most in the pharyngeal constrictor muscle (PCM) medius structure, with on average 9.0 ± 4.2 Gy(RBE) (p = 0.0002) compared to the clinical IMPT plans. The average NTCP for grade≥2 and grade≥3 xerostomia at 6 months after treatment significantly decreased with 4.7 ± 1.8% (p = 0.002) and 1.7 ± 0.8% (p = 0.002), respectively, while the average NTCP for grade≥2 and grade≥3 dysphagia decreased with 4.4 ± 2.9% (p = 0.002) and 0.9 ± 0.4% (p = 0.002), respectively, increasing the benefit of protons relative to VMAT. For a "step and shoot" proton arc delivery with auto beam sequencing the estimated delivery time is 11 min, similar to the delivery time of a 6-field IMPT treatment. Gamma analysis between the planned and delivered dose distribution resulted in a 99.99% pass rate using 1mm/1% dose difference/distance to agreement criteria. CONCLUSIONS: "Step and shoot" proton arc demonstrates potential to further reduce toxicity compared to IMPT and VMAT in OPC treatment. By employing 360 ELs and 30 beams in the proposed ELR method, delivery time can reach clinically acceptable levels without compromising plan toxicity when automatic beam sequencing is available.

Robustness assessment of clinical adaptive proton and photon radiotherapy for oesophageal cancer in the model-based approach.

PURPOSE: In the Netherlands, oesophageal cancer (EC) patients are selected for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using the expected normal tissue complication probability reduction (ΔNTCP) when treating with IMPT compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). In this study, we evaluate the robustness of the first EC patients treated with IMPT in our clinic in terms of target and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose with corresponding NTCP, as compared to VMAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 20 consecutive EC patients, clinical IMPT and VMAT plans were created on the average planning 4DCT. Both plans were robustly evaluated on weekly repeated 4DCTs and if target coverage degraded, replanning was performed. Target coverage was evaluated for complete treatment trajectories with and without replanning. The planned and accumulated mean lung dose (MLD) and mean heart dose (MHD) were additionally evaluated and translated into NTCP. RESULTS: Replanning in the clinic was performed more often for IMPT (15x) than would have been needed for VMAT (8x) (p = 0.11). Both adaptive treatments would have resulted in adequate accumulated target dose coverage. Replanning in the first week of treatment had most clinical impact, as anatomical changes resulting in insufficient accumulated target coverage were already observed at this stage. No differences were found in MLD between the planned dose and the accumulated dose. Accumulated MHD differed from the planned dose (p < 0.001), but since these differences were similar for VMAT and IMPT (1.0 and 1.5 Gy, respectively), the ΔNTCP remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Following an adaptive clinical workflow, adequate target dose coverage and stable OAR doses with corresponding NTCPs was assured for both IMPT and VMAT.

Treatment planning comparison in the PROTECT-trial randomising proton versus photon beam therapy in oesophageal cancer: Results from eight European centres.

PURPOSE: To compare dose distributions and robustness in treatment plans from eight European centres in preparation for the European randomized phase-III PROTECT-trial investigating the effect of proton therapy (PT) versus photon therapy (XT) for oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All centres optimized one PT and one XT nominal plan using delineated 4DCT scans for four patients receiving 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. Target volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95%iCTVtotal) should be >99%. Robustness towards setup, range, and respiration was evaluated. The plans were recalculated on a surveillance 4DCT (sCT) acquired at fraction ten and robustness evaluation was performed to evaluate the effect of respiration and inter-fractional anatomical changes. RESULTS: All PT and XT plans complied with V95%iCTVtotal >99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTVtotal >97% for all respiratory and robustness scenarios. Lung and heart dose varied considerably between centres for both modalities. The difference in mean lung dose and mean heart dose between each pair of XT and PT plans was in median [range] 4.8 Gy [1.1;7.6] and 8.4 Gy [1.9;24.5], respectively. Patients B and C showed large inter-fractional anatomical changes on sCT. For patient B, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal in the worst-case robustness scenario was 45% and 94% for XT and PT, respectively. For patient C, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was 57% and 72% for XT and PT, respectively. Patient A and D showed minor inter-fractional changes and the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was >85%. CONCLUSION: Large variability in dose to the lungs and heart was observed for both modalities. Inter-fractional anatomical changes led to larger target dose deterioration for XT than PT plans.

Diaphragm-Based Position Verification to Improve Daily Target Dose Coverage in Proton and Photon Radiation Therapy Treatment of Distal Esophageal Cancer.

PURPOSE: In modern conformal radiation therapy of distal esophageal cancer, target coverage can be affected by variations in the diaphragm position. We investigated if daily position verification (PV) extended by a diaphragm position correction would optimize target dose coverage for esophageal cancer treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 15 esophageal cancer patients, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were computed. Displacements of the target volume were correlated with diaphragm displacements using repeated 4-dimensional computed tomography images to determine the correction needed to account for diaphragm variations. Afterwards, target coverage was evaluated for 3 PV approaches based on: (1) bony anatomy (PV_B), (2) bony anatomy corrected for the diaphragm position (PV_BD) and (3) target volume (PV_T). RESULTS: The cranial-caudal mean target displacement was congruent with almost half of the diaphragm displacement (y = 0.459x), which was used for the diaphragm correction in PV_BD. Target dose coverage using PV_B was adequate for most patients with diaphragm displacements up till 10 mm (≥94% of the dose in 98% of the volume [D98%]). For larger displacements, the target coverage was better maintained by PV_T and PV_BD. Overall, PV_BD accounted best for target displacements, especially in combination with tissue density variations (D98%: IMPT 94% ± 5%, VMAT 96% ± 5%). Diaphragm displacements of more than 10 mm were observed in 22% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: PV_B was sufficient to achieve adequate target dose coverage in case of small deviations in diaphragm position. However, large deviations of the diaphragm were best mitigated by PV_BD. To detect the cases where target dose coverage could be compromised due to diaphragm position variations, we recommend monitoring of the diaphragm position before treatment through online imaging.

Assessment of a diaphragm override strategy for robustly optimized proton therapy planning for esophageal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To ensure target coverage in the treatment of esophageal cancer, a density override to the region of diaphragm motion can be applied in the optimization process. Here, we evaluate the benefit of this approach during robust optimization for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 10 esophageal cancer patients, two robustly optimized IMPT plans were created either using (WDO) or not using (NDO) a diaphragm density override of 1.05 g/cm3 during plan optimization. The override was applied to the excursion of the diaphragm between exhale and inhale. Initial robustness evaluation was performed for plan acceptance (setup errors of 8 mm, range errors of ±3%), and subsequently, on all weekly repeated 4DCTs (setup errors of 2 mm, range errors of ±3%). Target coverage and hotspots were analyzed on the resulting voxel-wise minimum (Vwmin ) and voxel-wise maximum (Vwmax ) dose distributions. RESULTS: The nominal dose distributions were similar for both WDO and NDO plans. However, visual inspection of the Vwmax of the WDO plans showed hotspots behind the right diaphragm override region. For one patient, target coverage and hotspots improved by applying the diaphragm override. We found no differences in target coverage in the weekly evaluations between the two approaches. CONCLUSION: The diaphragm override approach did not result in a clinical benefit in terms of planning and interfractional robustness. Therefore, we do not see added value in employing this approach as a default option during robust optimization for IMPT planning in esophageal cancer.

Quality of life and toxicity guided treatment plan optimisation for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of semi-automatic Quality of Life (QOL)-weighted normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)-guided VMAT treatment plan optimisation in head and neck cancer (HNC) and compare predicted QOL to that obtained with conventional treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 30 HNC patients who were treated with definitive radiotherapy. QOL-weighted NTCP-guided VMAT plans were optimised directly on 80 multivariable NTCP models of 20 common toxicities and symptoms on 4 different time points (6, 12, 18 and 24 months after radiotherapy) and each NTCP model was weighted relative to its impact on QOL. Planning results, NTCP and predicted QOL were compared with the clinical conventional VMAT plans. RESULTS: QOL-weighted NTCP-guided VMAT plans were clinically acceptable, had target coverage equally adequate as the clinical plans, but prioritised sparing of organs at risk (OAR) related to toxicities and symptoms that had the highest impact on QOL. NTCP was reduced for, e.g., dysphagia (-6.1% for ≥grade 2/-7.6% for ≥grade 3) and moderate-to-severe fatigue/speech problems/hoarseness (-0.7%/-1.5%/-2.5%) at 6 months, respectively. Concurrently, the average NTCP of toxicities related to salivary function increased with +0.4% to +5.7%. QOL-weighted NTCP-guided plans were produced in less time, were less dependent on the treatment planner experience and yielded more consistent results. The average predicted QOL improved by 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 points on a 0-100 scale (p < 0.001) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively, compared to the clinical plans. CONCLUSION: Semi-automatic QOL-weighted NTCP-guided VMAT treatment plan optimisation is feasible. It prioritised sparing of OARs related to high-impact toxicities and symptoms and resulted in a systematic improvement of predicted QOL compared to conventional VMAT.

Towards the clinical implementation of intensity-modulated proton therapy for thoracic indications with moderate motion: Robust optimised plan evaluation by means of patient and machine specific information.

PURPOSE: Compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), clinical benefits are anticipated when treating thoracic tumours with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). However, the current concern of plan robustness as a result of motion hampers its wide clinical implementation. To define an optimal protocol to treat lung and oesophageal cancers, we present a comprehensive evaluation of IMPT planning strategies, based on patient 4DCTs and machine log files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For ten lung and ten oesophageal cancer patients, a planning 4DCT and weekly repeated 4DCTs were collected. For these twenty patients, the CTV volume and motion were assessed based on the 4DCTs. In addition to clinical VMAT plans, layered rescanned 3D and 4D robust optimised IMPT plans (IMPT_3D and IMPT_4D respectively) were generated, and approved clinically, for all patients. The IMPT plans were then delivered in dry runs at our proton facility to obtain log files, and subsequently evaluated through our 4D robustness evaluation method (4DREM). With this method, for each evaluated plan, fourteen 4D accumulated scenario doses were obtained, representing 14 possible fractionated treatment courses. RESULTS: From VMAT to IMPT_3D, nominal Dmean(lungs-GTV) decreased 2.75 ± 0.56 GyRBE and 3.76 ± 0.92 GyRBE over all lung and oesophageal cancer patients, respectively. A more pronounced reduction was verified for Dmean(heart): 5.38 ± 7.36 GyRBE (lung cases) and 9.51 ± 2.25 GyRBE (oesophagus cases). Target coverage robustness of IMPT_3D was sufficient for 18/20 patients. Averaged dose in critical structures over all 4DREM scenarios changed only slightly for both IMPT_3D and IMPT_4D. Relative to IMPT_3D, no gain in IMPT_4D was observed. CONCLUSION: The dosimetric superiority of IMPT over VMAT has been established. For most thoracic tumours, our IMPT_3D planning protocol showed to be robust and clinically suitable. Nevertheless, accurate patient positioning and adapting to anatomical variations over the course of treatment remain compulsory.

Head and neck IMPT probabilistic dose accumulation: Feasibility of a 2 mm setup uncertainty setting.

OBJECTIVE: To establish optimal robust optimization uncertainty settings for clinical head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing 3D image-guided pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. METHODS: We analyzed ten consecutive HNC patients treated with 70 and 54.25 GyRBE to the primary and prophylactic clinical target volumes (CTV) respectively using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Clinical plans were generated using robust optimization with 5 mm/3% setup/range uncertainties (RayStation v6.1). Additional plans were created for 4, 3, 2 and 1 mm setup and 3% range uncertainty and for 3 mm setup and 3%, 2% and 1% range uncertainty. Systematic and random error distributions were determined for setup and range uncertainties based on our quality assurance program. From these, 25 treatment scenarios were sampled for each plan, each consisting of a systematic setup and range error and daily random setup errors. Fraction doses were calculated on the weekly verification CT closest to the date of treatment as this was considered representative of the daily patient anatomy. RESULTS: Plans with a 2 mm/3% setup/range uncertainty setting adequately covered the primary and prophylactic CTV (V95 ≥ 99% in 98.8% and 90.8% of the treatment scenarios respectively). The average organ-at-risk dose decreased with 1.1 GyRBE/mm setup uncertainty reduction and 0.5 GyRBE/1% range uncertainty reduction. Normal tissue complication probabilities decreased by 2.0%/mm setup uncertainty reduction and by 0.9%/1% range uncertainty reduction. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that margin reduction below 3 mm/3% is possible but requires a larger cohort to substantiate clinical introduction.

First experience with model-based selection of head and neck cancer patients for proton therapy.

PURPOSE: In the Netherlands, head and neck cancer (HNC) patients qualify for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) based on model-based selection (MBS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the first experience in MBS of HNC patients. METHODS: Patients who were subjected to MBS (Jan 2018-Sep 2019) were evaluated. A VMAT plan was created for all patients with optimal sparing of organ at risks (OARs) in normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for a number of toxicities. An IMPT plan was created only for those with NTCP difference (ΔNTCP) between VMAT and best-case scenario for proton (assuming 0 Gy dose for all OARs in IMPT plan) that exceeded any ΔNTCP-thresholds defined in Dutch National Indication Protocol. These patients qualified for a robust IMPT-plan creation with similar target doses and subsequent plan comparison. RESULTS: Of 227 patients, 141 (62%) qualified for plan comparison, of which 80 (35%) were eventually selected for proton therapy. Most patients were selected based on the ΔNTCP for dysphagia-related toxicities. The selection rate was higher among patients with advanced disease, pharyngeal tumors, and/or baseline complaints. A significant reduction in all OAR doses and NTCP values was obtained with IMPT compared with VMAT in both selected and non-selected patients, but more pronounced in patients selected for protons. CONCLUSION: Model-based selection of patients with HNC for proton therapy is clinically feasible. Approximately one third of HNC patients qualify for protons and these patients have the highest probability to benefit from protons in terms of toxicity prevention.

Weekly robustness evaluation of intensity-modulated proton therapy for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is expected to result in clinical benefits by lowering radiation dose to organs-at-risk (OARs). However, there are concerns about plan robustness due to motion. To address this uncertainty we evaluated the robustness of IMPT compared to the widely clinically used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on weekly repeated computed tomographies (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 19 patients with oesophageal cancer were evaluated. IMPT and VMAT plans were created on a planning 4-Dimensional CT (p4DCT) and evaluated on weekly repeated 4DCTs (r4DCT). In case of inadequate target coverage or unacceptable high dose to normal tissue, re-planning was performed. Dose distributions of the r4DCTs were warped to p4DCT, resulting in an estimated actual given dose (EAGD). RESULTS: Compared to VMAT, IMPT resulted in significantly lowered dose to heart, lungs, spleen, liver and kidneys. For IMPT, target coverage was adequate (after max 1 replanning) in 17/19 cases. In two cases target coverage remained insufficient. However, in one of these patients the summed dose was insufficient (due to tumor shrinkage) while weekly coverage was adequate. For the other patient the target coverage was also insufficient by VMAT, due to large anatomical changes during treatment. For VMAT, adequate target coverage was achieved in 18/19 cases without re-planning. However, for reasons of high OAR dose re-planning was required in two cases. CONCLUSION: IMPT reduces the dose to OARs significantly, while achieving adequate target coverage in the majority of patients. Re-planning was necessary for both IMPT and VMAT due to anatomical changes.

Organ sparing potential and inter-fraction robustness of adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) robustness and organ sparing capabilities with that of adaptive volumetric arc photon therapy (VMAT).Material and methods: Eighteen lung cancer patients underwent a planning 4DCT (p4DCT) and 5 weekly repeated 4DCT (r4DCT) scans. Target volumes and organs at risk were manually delineated on the three-dimensional (3D) average scans of the p4DCT (av_p4DCT) and of the r4DCT scans (av_r4DCT). Planning target volume (PTV)-based VMAT plans and internal clinical target volume (ICTV)-based robust IMPT plans were optimized in 3D on the av_p4DCT and re-calculated on the av_r4DCTs. Re-planning on av_r4DCTs was performed when indicated and accumulated doses were evaluated on the av_p4DCT.Results: Adaptive VMAT and IMPT resulted in adequate ICTV coverage on av_r4DCT in all patients and adequate accumulated-dose ICTV coverage on av_p4DCT in 17/18 patients (due to a shrinking target in one patient). More frequent re-planning was needed for IMPT than for VMAT. The average mean heart dose reduction with IMPT compared with VMAT was 4.6 Gy (p = .001) and it was >5 Gy for five patients (6, 7, 8, 15, and 22 Gy). The average mean lung dose reduction was 3.2 Gy (p < .001). Significant reductions in heart and lung V5 Gy were observed with IMPT.Conclusion: Robust-planned IMPT required re-planning more often than VMAT but resulted in similar accumulated ICTV coverage. With IMPT, heart and lung mean dose values and low dose regions were significantly reduced. Substantial cardiac sparing was obtained in a subgroup of five patients (28%).

Practical robustness evaluation in radiotherapy - A photon and proton-proof alternative to PTV-based plan evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A planning target volume (PTV) in photon treatments aims to ensure that the clinical target volume (CTV) receives adequate dose despite treatment uncertainties. The underlying static dose cloud approximation (the assumption that the dose distribution is invariant to errors) is problematic in intensity modulated proton treatments where range errors should be taken into account as well. The purpose of this work is to introduce a robustness evaluation method that is applicable to photon and proton treatments and is consistent with (historic) PTV-based treatment plan evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The limitation of the static dose cloud approximation was solved in a multi-scenario simulation by explicitly calculating doses for various treatment scenarios that describe possible errors in the treatment course. Setup errors were the same as the CTV-PTV margin and the underlying theory of 3D probability density distributions was extended to 4D to include range errors, maintaining a 90% confidence level. Scenario dose distributions were reduced to voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose distributions; the first to evaluate CTV coverage and the second for hot spots. Acceptance criteria for CTV D98 and D2 were calibrated against PTV-based criteria from historic photon treatment plans. RESULTS: CTV D98 in worst case scenario dose and voxel-wise minimum dose showed a very strong correlation with scenario average D98 (R2 > 0.99). The voxel-wise minimum dose visualised CTV dose conformity and coverage in 3D in agreement with PTV-based evaluation in photon therapy. Criteria for CTV D98 and D2 of the voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose showed very strong correlations to PTV D98 and D2 (R2 > 0.99) and on average needed corrections of -0.9% and +2.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A practical approach to robustness evaluation was provided and clinically implemented for PTV-less photon and proton treatment planning, consistent with PTV evaluations but without its static dose cloud approximation.

Evaluating the benefit of PBS vs. VMAT dose distributions in terms of dosimetric sparing and robustness against inter-fraction anatomical changes for pediatric abdominal tumors.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the dosimetric sparing and robustness against inter-fraction anatomical changes between photon and proton dose distributions for children with abdominal tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton dose distributions were calculated for 20 abdominal pediatric cases (average 3, range 1-8 years). VMAT plans were based on a full-arc while PBS plans on 2-3 posterior-oblique irradiation fields. Plans were robustly optimized on a patient-specific internal target volume (ITV) using a uniform 5 mm set-up uncertainty. Additionally, for the PBS plans a ± 3% proton range uncertainty was accounted for. Fractional dose re-calculations were performed using the planning computed tomography (CT) deformably registered to the daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) images. Fractional doses were accumulated rigidly. Planned and CBCT accumulated VMAT and PBS dose distributions were compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. RESULTS: Significant better sparing of the organs at risk with a maximum reduction in the mean dose of 40% was achieved with PBS. Mean ITV DVH parameters differences between planned and CBCT accumulated dose distributions were smaller than 0.5% for both VMAT and PBS. However, the ITV coverage (V95% > 99%) was not reached for one patient for the accumulated VMAT dose distribution. CONCLUSIONS: For pediatric patients with abdominal tumors, improved dosimetric sparing was obtained with PBS compared to VMAT. In addition, PBS delivered by posterior-oblique irradiation fields demonstrated to be robust against anatomical inter-fraction changes. Compared to PBS, daily anatomical changes proved to affect the target coverage of VMAT dose distributions to a higher extent.

Comprehensive 4D robustness evaluation for pencil beam scanned proton plans.

Due to anticipated clinical benefits, moving targets are potential future indications for pencil beam scanned proton therapy (PBS-PT). However, currently they are not widely treated at PBS-PT facilities due to dosimetric uncertainties caused by motion. We developed a method, the 4D robustness evaluation method (4DREM), to realistically and efficiently assess all possible events impacting PBS-PT treatments in the thorax. Using the 4DREM in large cohorts of lung and oesophageal cancer patients, it will become possible to illustrate, in clinical practice, how to trigger robustness settings for plan optimisation and to select and apply motion mitigation techniques.

Composite minimax robust optimization of VMAT improves target coverage and reduces non-target dose in head and neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the potential of composite minimax robust optimization (CMRO) compared to planning target volume (PTV)-based optimization for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten HNC patients previously treated with a PTV-based VMAT plan were studied. In addition to the PTV-plan a VMAT plan was created with CMRO. For both plans an adapted planning strategy was also investigated, including a plan adaptation during the third week of treatment. The PTV-plans and CMRO-plans (adapted and non-adapted) were evaluated by means of the estimated actually given dose (EAGD). Therefore, the dose was calculated on daily acquired CBCTs, mapped onto the planning CT and accumulated. The plans were compared by dosimetric parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) for tube feeding dependence, grade 2-4 dysphagia and xerostomia. The accuracy of CBCT-based dose accumulation was further quantified by comparisons of dose accumulation on weekly verification CTs. RESULTS: On average, CMRO significantly increased (1.5 Gy) the D98% of the EAGD to the clinical target volume and significantly decreased the mean dose of the ipsilateral parotid (2.8 Gy), inferior pharynx constrictor muscle (0.7 Gy) and the oral cavity (0.8 Gy). This translated into significantly reduced NTCP of tube feeding dependence (0.9%) and xerostomia (2.8%). The differences in EAGD derived from evaluation CTs or CBCTs were minimal. CONCLUSION: Minimax robust optimization led to improved target coverage and dose reduction in organs at risk in HNC patients treated with VMAT.