Optimal minimum MU for intensity-modulated proton therapy with pencil-beam scanning proton beams.

PURPOSE: A higher minimum monitor unit (minMU) for pencil-beam scanning proton beams in intensity-modulated proton therapy is preferred for more efficient delivery. However, plan quality may be compromised when the minMU is too large. This study aimed to identify the optimal minMU (OminMU) to improve plan delivery efficiency while maintaining high plan quality. METHODS: We utilized clinical plans including six anatomic sites (brain, head and neck, breast, lung, abdomen, and prostate) from 23 patients previously treated with the Varian ProBeam system. The minMU of each plan was increased from the current clinical minMU of 1.1 to 3-24 MU depending on the daily prescribed dose (DPD). The dosimetric parameters of the plans were evaluated for consistency against a 1.1-minMU plan for target coverage as well as organs-at-risk dose sparing. DPD/minMU was defined as the ratio of DPD to minMU (cGy/MU) to find the OminMU by ensuring that dosimetric parameters did not differ by >1% compared to those of the 1.1-minMU plan. RESULTS: All plans up to 5 minMU showed no significant dose differences compared to the 1.1-minMU plan. Plan qualities remained acceptable when DPD/minMU ≥35 cGy/MU. This suggests that the 35 cGy/MU criterion can be used as the OminMU, which implies that 5 MU is the OminMU for a conventional fraction dose of 180 cGy. Treatment times were decreased by an average of 32% (max 56%, min 7%) and by an average of 1.6 min when the minMU was increased from 1.1 to OminMU. CONCLUSION: A clinical guideline for OminMU has been established. The minMU can be increased by 1 MU for every 35 cGy of DPD without compromising plan quality for most cases analyzed in this study. Significant treatment time reduction of up to 56% was observed when the suggested OminMU is used.

Is noncoplanar plan more robust to inter-fractional variations than coplanar plan in treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil-beam scanning proton beams?

PURPOSE: Noncoplanar plans (NCPs) are commonly used for proton treatment of bilateral head and neck (HN) malignancies. NCP requires additional verification setup imaging between beams to correct residual errors of robotic couch motion, which increases imaging dose and total treatment time. This study compared the quality and robustness of NCPs with those of coplanar plans (CPs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Under an IRB-approved study, CPs were created retrospectively for 10 bilateral HN patients previously treated with NCPs maintaining identical beam geometry of the original plan but excluding couch rotations. Plan robustness to the inter-fractional variation (IV) of both plans was evaluated through the Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) of weekly quality assurance CT (QACT) sets (39 total). In addition, delivery efficiency for both plans was compared using total treatment time (TTT) and beam-on time (BOT). RESULTS: No significant differences in plan quality were observed in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage (D95) or organ-at-risk (OAR) doses (p > 0.4 for all CTVs and OARs). No significant advantage of NCPs in the robustness to IV was found over CP, either. Changes in D95 of QA plans showed a linear correlation (slope = 1.006, R2  > 0.99) between NCP and CP for three CTV data points (CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3) in each QA plan (117 data points for 39 QA plans). NCPs showed significantly higher beam delivery time than CPs for TTT (539 ± 50 vs. 897 ± 142 s; p < 0.001); however, no significant differences were observed for BOT. CONCLUSION: NCPs are not more robust to IV than CPs when treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil-beam scanning proton beams. CPs showed plan quality and robustness similar to NCPs while reduced treatment time (∼6 min). This suggests that CPs may be a more efficient planning technique for bilateral HN cancer proton therapy.

Clinical Implementation and Dosimetric Evaluation of a Robust Proton Lattice Planning Strategy Using Primary and Robust Complementary Beams.

PURPOSE: Pencil-beam scanning proton therapy has been considered as a potential modality for the 3D form of spatially-fractionated-radiation-therapy called lattice therapy. However, few practical solutions have been introduced in the clinic. Existing limitations include degradation in plan quality and robustness when using single-field versus multifield lattice plans, respectively. We propose a practical and robust proton lattice (RPL) planning method using multifield and evaluate its dosimetric characteristics compared to clinically acceptable photon lattice plans. METHODS: Seven cases previously treated with photon lattice therapy were used to evaluate a novel RPL planning technique using two-orthogonal beams: a primary beam (PB) and a robust complementary beam (RCB) that deliver 67% and 33%, respectively, of the prescribed dose to vertices inside the gross-target-volume (GTV). Only RCB is robustly optimized for setup and range uncertainties. The number and volume of vertices, peak-to-valley dose ratios (PVDRs), and volume of low dose to GTV of proton and photon plans were compared. The RPL technique was then used in treatment of two patients and their dosimetric parameters are reported. RESULTS: The RPL strategy was able to achieve the clinical planning goals. Compared to previously-treated photon plans, the average number of vertices increased by 30%, average vertex volume by 49% (18.2±25.9cc vs. 12.2±14.5cc, P=0.21), and higher PVDR (10.5±4.8 vs. 2.5±0.9, P<0.005) was achieved. In addition, RPL plans show more conformal dose with less low-dose to GTV (V30%: 60.9±7.2% vs. 81.6±13.9% and V10%: 88.3±4.5% vs. 98.6±3.6% [P<0.01]). The RPL plan for two treated patients showed PVDRs of 4.61 and 14.85 with vertices-to-GTV ratios of 1.52% and 1.30%, respectively. CONCLUSION: A novel RPL planning strategy using a pair of orthogonal beams was developed and successfully translated to the clinic. The proposed method can generate better quality plans, a higher number of vertices, and higher PVDRs than currently used photon lattice plans.

Outcomes of and treatment planning considerations for a hybrid technique delivering proton pencil-beam scanning radiation to women with metal-containing tissue expanders undergoing post-mastectomy radiation.

BACKGROUND: Following mastectomy, immediate breast reconstruction often involves the use of temporary tissue expanders (TEs). TEs contain metallic ports (MPs), which complicate proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS) planning. A technique was implemented for delivering PBS post-mastectomy radiation (PMRT) to patients with TEs and MPs. METHODS: A protocol utilizing a hybrid single- and multi-field optimization (SFO, MFO) technique was developed. Plans were robustly optimized using a Monte Carlo algorithm. A CTV_eval structure including chest wall (CW) and regional nodal (RNI) targets and excluding the TE was evaluated. Organ at risk (OAR) dosimetry and acute toxicities were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine women were treated with this technique. A 2-field SFO technique was used superior and inferior to the MP, with a 3 or 4-field MFO technique used at the level of the MP. Virtual blocks were utilized so that beams did not travel through the MP. A port-to-CW distance of 1 cm was required. Patients underwent daily image-guidance to ensure the port remained within a 0.5 cm internal planning volume (ITV). Median RT dose to CTV_eval was 50.4 Gy (45.0-50.4). Median 95% CTV_eval coverage was 99.5% (95-100). Optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) readings were available for 8 patients and correlated to the dose measurements in the treatment planning system (TPS); median OSLD ratio was 0.99 (range, 0.93-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering PMRT with PBS for women with metal-containing TEs using a hybrid SFO/MFO technique is feasible, reproducible, and achieves excellent dose distributions. Specialized planning and image-guidance techniques are required to safely utilize this treatment in the clinic.

Plan quality effects of maximum monitor unit constraints in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for central nervous system and skull base tumors.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): With reports of CNS toxicity in patients treated with proton therapy at doses lower than would be expected based on photon data, it has been proposed that heavy monitor unit (MU) weighting of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy spots may potentially increase the risk of toxicity. We evaluated the impact of maximum MU weighting per spot (maxMU/spot) restrictions on PBS plan quality, prior to implementing clinic-wide maxMU/spot restrictions. MATERIALS/METHODS: PBS plans of 11 patients, of which 3 plans included boosts, for a total of 14 PBS sample cases were included. Per sample case, a single dosimetrist created 4 test plans, gradually reducing the maxMU/spot in the plan. Test Plan 1, unrestricted in maxMU/spot, was the reference for all restricted plan comparisons (comparison sets 2 vs. 1; 3 vs. 1; and 4 vs. 1). The impact of MU/spot restrictions on plan quality metrics were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank test analyses. Treatment delivery time was modeled for a representative case. RESULTS: A total of 14 PBS sample cases, 7 (50%) single-field optimized, 7 (50%) multi-field optimized, 9 (64%) delivering > 3500 cGy, 9 (64%) with 3 beams, and 7 (50%) without a range shifter were included. There were no differences in plan quality metrics of target coverage (V95% and V100% prescription), conformality and gradient indices, hot spot volume (V105% prescription), and dose to normal brain (V10%/30%/50%/70%/90%/100% prescription) with reductions of allowable maxMU/spot across all comparison sets (p > 0.05). Max MU/spot restrictions did not increase treatment delivery time when analyzed for a representative case. CONCLUSION: MaxMU/spot restrictions within the thresholds evaluated in this study did not degrade overall plan quality metrics. Future studies should evaluate spot weighting with linear energy transfer/relative biologic effectiveness-informed planning to determine if spot weighting manipulation impacts clinical outcomes and mitigates toxicity.

Quantification of Acute Skin Toxicities in Patients With Breast Cancer Undergoing Adjuvant Proton versus Photon Radiation Therapy: A Single Institutional Experience.

PURPOSE: Acute skin toxicity in the form of radiation dermatitis (RD) or skin hyperpigmentation (SH) is a common problem experienced by patients undergoing breast irradiation. Proton radiation has been thought to deliver higher doses to skin compared with photon radiation because of differences in the physical properties between photons and protons; however, limited literature exists directly comparing toxicity outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The highest recorded grades of acute RD and SH were analyzed in 86 patients undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy to the breast with or without regional lymph nodes after lumpectomy (breast-conserving surgery) or mastectomy with either proton pencil-beam scanning (n = 39) or photon (n = 47) radiation therapy within a single institution to analyze differences in severity of acute skin reactions. For 34 of 47 photon and 33 of 39 proton patients, a "skin" contour was retroactively created in our treatment planning systems, and multiple dosimetric parameters were calculated to quantify objective radiation doses received by skin. RESULTS: On χ2 analysis, the highest reported grade of RD was significantly higher in women undergoing proton radiation compared with photon radiation; grade ≥2 RD was present in 69.2% versus 29.8% of patients receiving proton and photon therapy, respectively (P = .002). Rates of grade 3 RD were 5.1% versus 4.3% for proton versus photon radiation, respectively (P = .848). Overall, there were no significant differences in rates of SH between modalities. There were no grade 4 to 5 toxicities in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison with patients receiving photon radiation, a significantly higher rate of grade ≥2 RD was observed in patients undergoing proton radiation, with very low rates of grade 3 toxicity in both groups. Rates of SH did not differ significantly between modalities. Women should be counseled regarding the possibility of increased grade 2 toxicities, although this might present a dosimetric advantage for physicians when treating patients in the postmastectomy setting or when skin was involved on presentation.