Implementation of Photon Treatment Back-up Workflow at a High-Volume Proton Center: Safety, Quality, and Patient Considerations.

PURPOSE: A successful proton beam therapy (PBT) center relies heavily on the proper function and maintenance of a proton beam therapy machine. However, when a PBT machine is non-operational, a proton facility is hindered with delays that can potentially lead to inferior treatment outcome due to treatment interruption. This article reports a viable solution for a photon back-up plan in a proton down event. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The implementation of a workflow for which proton plans are converted to photon plans so that patients can be treated using photons has been a successful strategy to reduce delays and mitigate its effect on patient care. This workflow was established through collaboration of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, therapists, nurses, and schedulers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A tiered system established by disease site, number of fractions, and individualized circumstances is used to prioritize patients. Proton-photon backup planning strategy and physics check details were described. This article provides an overview of workflow of conversion of PBT to photon when the PBT machine is down. Specific needs of patients undergoing proton beam therapy are addressed.

Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A dosimetric comparative study.

PURPOSE: To compare dosimetric performance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D-CTs. The dose-volume-histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Compared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax , heart Dmean , and lung V5 Gy[ RBE ] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean , but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax , lung Dmean , and V5 Gy[ RBE ] . Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered. CONCLUSIONS: Small-spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.

Treatment planning for dose escalation in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

This study was performed to examine potential field arrangements for irradiating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on a dose escalation study. An example patient was chosen and 7 coplanar treatment plans were created to treat a NSCLC. Two plans included prophylactic nodal irradiation (PNRT) and 5 did not. Four plans used 4 fields, 2 plans used 5 fields, and 1 plan included dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational therapy. All plans delivered 80 Gy to the isocenter with 10-MV x-rays. Each plan was initially created without dose inhomogeneity corrections and then was recalculated with these corrections, maintaining the same weighting and number of monitor units. Avoiding PNRT spared a considerable volume of normal tissue from radiation. Plans with 5 fields generally spared normal tissues better than 4-field plans. There was no benefit to the dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational plan. Inhomogeneity corrections revealed that higher doses were delivered to both the tumor and normal structures. Seven beam arrangements for the treatment of NSCLC were compared to develop potential beam arrangements that would be applicable to treating NSCLC on a multi-institutional dose escalation study. We favor the use of at least 5 beams in most situations. It is possible that the use of more fields would further improve plans up to a point of diminishing returns, as exemplified by the lack of benefit seen with the dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational plan. It is possible that the use of noncoplanar fields or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) may further improve the therapeutic ratio.