RESUMO
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The proximity or overlap of PTV and OAR poses a major challenge in SBRT of pancreatic cancer (PACA). This international treatment planning benchmark study investigates whether Simultaneously Integrated Boost (SIB) and Protection (SIP) concepts in PACA SBRT can lead to improved and harmonized plan quality. MATERIALS/METHODS: A multiparametric specification of desired target doses (GTVD50%, GTVD99%, PTVD95%, PTV0.5cc) with two prescription doses of GTVD50%=5×9.2Gy (46Gy) and GTVD50%=8×8.25Gy (66Gy) and OAR limits were distributed with planning CT and contours from 3 PACA patients. In phase 1, plans were ranked using a scoring system for comparison of trade-offs between GTV/PTV and OAR. In phase 2, re-planning was performed for the most challenging case and prescription with dedicated SIB and SIP contours provided for optimization after group discussion. RESULTS: For all 3 cases and both phases combined, 292 plans were generated from 42 institutions in 5 countries using commonly available treatment planning systems. The GTVD50% prescription was performed by only 76% and 74% of planners within 2% for 5 and 8 fractions, respectively. The GTVD99% goal was mostly reached, while the balance between OAR and target dose showed initial SIB/SIP-like optimization strategies in about 50% of plans. For plan ranking, 149 and 217 score penalties were given for 5 and 8 fractions, pointing to improvement possibilities. For phase 2, the GTVD50% prescription was performed by 95% of planners within 2% and GTVD99% as well as OAR doses were better harmonized with notable less score penalties. Fourteen of 19 planners improved their plan rank, 9 of them by at least 2 ranks. CONCLUSION: Dedicated SIB/SIP concepts in combination with multiparametric prescriptions and constraints can lead to overall harmonized and high treatment plan quality for PACA SBRT. Standardized SIB/SIP treatment planning in multicenter clinical trials appears feasible after group consensus and training.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To commission the treatment planning system (TPS) RayStation for proton therapy including beam models for spot scanning and for uniform scanning. METHODS: Tests consist of procedures from ESTRO booklet number 7, the German DIN for constancy checks of TPSs, and extra tests checking the dose perturbation function. The dose distributions within patients were verified in silico by a comparison of 65 clinical treatment plans with the TPS XiO. Dose-volume parameters, dose differences, and three-dimensional gamma-indices serve as measures of similarity. The monthly constancy checks of Raystation have been automatized with a script. RESULTS: The basic functionality of the software complies with ESTRO booklet number 7. For a few features minor enhancements are suggested. The dose distribution in RayStation agrees with the calculation in XiO. This is supported by a gamma-index (3mm/3%) pass rate of >98.9% (median over 59 plans) for the volume within the 20% isodose line and a difference of <0.3% of V95 of the PTV (median over 59 plans). If spot scanning is used together with a range shifter, the dose level calculated by RayStation can be off by a few percent. CONCLUSIONS: RayStation can be used for the creation of clinical proton treatment plans. Compared to XiO RayStation has an improved modelling of the lateral dose fall-off in passively delivered fields. For spot scanning fields with range shifter blocks an empirical adjustment of monitor units is required. The computation of perturbed doses also allows the evaluation of the robustness of a treatment plan.