Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy is under investigation in breast cancer as a strategy to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. So far, studies investigating proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) have used conventional fractionation over 25-28 days, but whether hypofractionated proton PMRT is feasible is unclear. We aimed to compare conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in patients with indications for PMRT, including those with immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS: We did a randomised phase 2 trial (MC1631) at Mayo Clinic in Rochester (MN, USA) and Mayo Clinic in Arizona (Phoenix, AZ, USA) comparing conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) and hypofractionated (40·05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) proton PMRT. All patients were treated with pencil-beam scanning. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and breast cancer resected by mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction with indications for PMRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either conventional fractionation or hypofractionation, with presence of immediate reconstruction (yes vs no) as a stratification factor, using a biased-coin minimisation algorithm. Any patient who received at least one fraction of protocol treatment was evaluable for the primary endpoint and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 24-month complication rate from the date of first radiotherapy, defined as grade 3 or worse adverse events occurring from 90 days after last radiotherapy or unplanned surgical interventions in patients with immediate reconstruction. The inferiority of hypofractionation would not be ruled out if the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in 24-month complication rate between the two groups was greater than 10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783690, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2016, and Aug 23, 2018, 88 patients were randomly assigned (44 to each group), of whom 82 received protocol treatment (41 in the conventional fractionation group and 41 in the hypofractionation group; median age of 52 years [IQR 44-64], 79 [96%] patients were White, two [2%] were Black or African American, one [1%] was Asian, and 79 [96%] were not of Hispanic ethnicity). As of data cutoff (Jan 30, 2023), the median follow-up was 39·3 months (IQR 37·5-61·2). The median mean heart dose was 0·54 Gy (IQR 0·30-0·72) for the conventional fractionation group and 0·49 Gy (0·25-0·64) for the hypofractionation group. Within 24 months of first radiotherapy, 14 protocol-defined complications occurred in six (15%) patients in the conventional fractionation group and in eight (20%) patients in the hypofractionation group (absolute difference 4·9% [one-sided 95% CI 18·5], p=0·27). The complications in the conventionally fractionated group were contracture (five [12%] of 41 patients]) and fat necrosis (one [2%] patient) requiring surgical intervention. All eight protocol-defined complications in the hypofractionation group were due to infections, three of which were acute infections that required surgical intervention, and five were late infections, four of which required surgical intervention. All 14 complications were in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. INTERPRETATION: After a median follow-up of 39·3 months, non-inferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be established. However, given similar tolerability, hypofractionated proton PMRT appears to be worthy of further study in patients with and without immediate reconstruction. FUNDING: The Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA, and the US National Cancer Institute.

Feasibility of using megavoltage computed tomography to reduce proton range uncertainty: A simulation study.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate that variation in chemical composition has a negligible effect on the mapping curve from relative electron density (RED) to proton stopping power ratio (SPR), and to establish the theoretical framework of using Megavoltage (MV) computed tomography (CT), instead of kilovoltage (kV) dual energy CT, to accurately estimate proton SPR. METHODS: A simulation study was performed to evaluate the effect of chemical composition variation on kVCT number and proton SPR. The simulation study involved both reference and simulated human tissues. The reference human tissues, together with their physical densities and chemical compositions, came from the ICRP publication 23. The simulated human tissues were created from the reference human tissues assuming that elemental percentage weight followed a Gaussian distribution. For all tissues, kVCT number and proton SPR were obtained through (a) theoretical calculation from tissue's physical density and chemical composition which served as the ground truth, and (b) estimation from RED using the calibration curves established from the stoichiometric method. Deviations of the estimated values from the calculated values were quantified as errors in using RED to estimate kVCT number and proton SPR. RESULTS: Given a chemical composition variation of 5% (1σ) of the nominal percentage weights, the total estimation error of using RED to estimate kVCT number was 0.34%, 0.62%, and 0.77% and the total estimation error of using RED to estimate proton SPR was 0.30%, 0.22%, and 0.16% for fat tissues, non-fat soft tissues and bone tissues, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemical composition had a negligible effect on the method of using RED to determine proton SPR. RED itself is sufficient to accurately determine proton SPR. MVCT number maintains a superb linear relationship with RED because it is highly dominated by Compton scattering. Therefore, MVCT has great potential in reducing the proton range uncertainty.

A novel daily QA system for proton therapy.

We describe the design and use of a daily quality assurance (QA) system for proton therapy. The QA system is designed to check the overall readiness of proton therapy system consistently within certain reference tolerances by a home-made QA device (the QA device). The QA device is comprised of a commercially available QA device, rf-Daily QA 3, a home-made acrylic phantom, a set of acrylic compensators with various thicknesses, and a mechanical indexing jig. The indexing jig indexes the rf-Daily QA 3, as well as the acrylic phantom, onto the patient treatment couch. Embedded fiducial markers in the acrylic phantom are used to check X-ray image quality and positioning alignment accuracy of the imaging system. The rf-Daily QA 3 is used to check proton beam output, range and symmetry with one single beam delivery. We developed in-house software to calculate beam range and symmetry, based on various ion chambers' readings inside the rf-Daily QA 3. With a single setup and one beam irradiation, the QA system is employed to check couch movement, laser alignment, image registration, and reference proton beam characteristics. The simplicity and robustness of this QA system allows for a total QA time of less than 20 minutes per room. The system has been in use at three proton therapy centers since June 2009.

Dose delivery reproducibility for PBS proton treatment of breast cancer patients with and without mask immobilization.

BACKGROUND: Setup reproducibility of the tissue in the proton beam path is critical in maintaining the planned clinical target volume (CTV) dose coverage and sparing the organs at risk (OAR). In this study, we retrospectively evaluated radiation therapy dose reproducibility for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatment of breast cancer patients with and without mask immobilization. METHODS: Ninety-four patients treated between January 2019 and September 2022 with at least one verification CT scan (V-CT) in treatment position were included for this study. All patients were set up with arms up using the Orfit AIO patient positioning system, with (69 patients) or without (25 patients) mask immobilization in chin, neck, shoulder, upper arm, and chest areas. Two to three enface or near enface single field uniform dose PBS beams were optimized using a commercial treatment planning system. Prescription doses were 25 to 60 GyRBE in 5 to 45 fractions. Treatment plan doses re-calculated on V-CTs were compared to the corresponding planned doses. Cumulative doses were also calculated for patients with at least 3 V-CTs by deform and weighted sum doses from V-CTs to corresponding P-CTs. CTV D95%, ipsilateral-lung V40%, esophagus D0.01cc, and heart mean dose were evaluated and reported as percentages of prescription doses. Differences were large dose deteriorations (LDD) if: (1) CTV (V-CT/cumulative D95%) - (Planned D95%) < - 5%; or (2) Ipsilateral-lung (V-CT/cumulative V40%) - (Planned V40%) > 5%; or (3) Esophagus (V-CT/cumulative D0.01cc) - (Planned D0.01cc) > 10%; or (4) Heart (V-CT/cumulative mean) - (Planned mean) > 1.5%. RESULTS: On average, V-CT/cumulative and planned CTV/OAR dose parameter differences were less than 2.2%/1.7% and 3.4%/3.7% for masked and maskless patients, respectively. The percentages of patients with at least one CTV or OAR V-CT/cumulative dose LDD were 20.3%/25.0% and 72.0%/54.0% for masked and maskless patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On average, masked/maskless setups achieved delivered and planned CTV/OAR dose parameters agreed within 2.2%/3.7% for PBS treatment of breast cancer patients in this study. Maskless patients had higher rate of CTV/OAR LDDs compared to masked patients. Dosimetric differences large enough to raise clinical concerns in either group were able to be addressed with replannings.

Technical Note: Clinical modeling and validation of breast tissue expander metallic ports in a commercial treatment planning system for proton therapy.

PURPOSE: To validate breast tissue expander metallic port (MP) models in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatments for breast cancer patients with breast tissue expanders. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three types of MPs taken out of a Mentor CPX4, a Natrelle 133, and a PMT Integra breast tissue expanders and a 650 cc saline filled Mentor CPX4 expander were placed on top of acrylic slabs, and scanned using a Siemens Somatom Definition AS Open RT CT scanner. Structure templates for each of the MPs were designed within Eclipse TPS. The CT numbers for the metallic parts were overridden to reflect measured or calculated relative proton stopping powers (RPSPs). Mock targets were contoured in acrylic to represent postmastectomy chest-wall radiation therapy (PMRT) targets. Plans with different beam incident angles were optimized using the Eclipse TPS to deliver uniform prescription dose to the target using Hitachi Probeat-V PBS beams. Eclipse calculated doses and an in-house Monte Carlo (MC) code calculated doses were compared to the measured Gafchromic EBT3 film doses in acrylic. RESULTS: TPS/MC and film dose comparison results showed that (1) 3%/2 mm/10% threshold Gamma pass rates were better than 90.8% in the acrylic target region for all plans; (2) comparing TPS and film doses for the individual beam plans in the MP dose shadow areas, the area with dose difference above 5% ([ΔA] 5%) ranged from 1.1 to 5.0 cm2 , and the maximum dose difference ([ΔD] 0.01 cm2 ) ranged from 12.5% to 25.0%; (3) comparing MC and film doses for the individual beam plans in the MP dose shadow areas, the (ΔA) 5% varied from 1.1 to 2.9 cm2 and (ΔD) 0.01 cm2 varied from 8.5% to 24.2%; (4) for a plan composed of three individual beams treating through the Mentor CPX4 expander, the TPS (ΔA) 5% was less than 0.13 cm2 , and the (ΔD) 0.01 cm2 was less than 6% in the MP dose shadow areas. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to treat patients with tissue expanders using multiple PBS beams using a structure template with CT number overridden to represent the measured/calculated RPSP for MPs for PBS treatment planning. MC dose was more accurate than analytical dose in the areas with high dose gradient caused by the density heterogeneity of the breast tissue expander MPs.

Technical Note: Comprehensive evaluation and implementation of two independent methods for beam monitor calibration for proton scanning beam.

PURPOSE: To clinically implement and comprehensively evaluate two independent methods for beam monitor calibration of scanning proton beam. METHODS: Seven proton energies that represent the lowest to highest energy proton beams were selected. Single energy layer circular fields of diameter 15 cm with 2.5 mm spot spacing and 10 times of repainting (FS15cm ) were designed for all energies. The effective measurement points of Bragg peak chamber (BPC), advanced Markus chamber (AMC) and farmer chamber (FC) were all aligned to 2 cm depth in water using SSD setup. The BPC and AMC were cross-calibrated with farmer chamber (FC) using the field FS15cm . In order to evaluate BPC's lateral response uniformity, a collimated narrow proton beam (5.8 mm diameter) was delivered to the active area and edge of the BPC. The dose area product (DAP) was measured using two methods by two BPCs, one AMC and one FC. For method 1, a single spot proton beam was delivered to the geometric center of the BPC. For method 2, the fields FS15cm were delivered to FC and AMC, respectively. Accumulated charges by these chambers were converted to DAPs, and the quantitative difference of DAPs between both methods was calculated. The causes of the uncertainties were discussed, and the advantages of the two methods were compared. RESULTS: The two BPCs showed different lateral response uniformity. BPC1 has a uniform response from the center up to a radius of 3.5 cm. BPC2 has a uniform response only to 2 cm and the response dropped 1% to 2% at 3.5 cm from center. BPC2 also has significant over-response compared to BPC1. A 2.2% systematic error would be transferred to DAP if the over-response from BPC2 was not considered. The DAPs measured by method 1 with two BPCs and by method 2 with FC and AMC were consistent to 0.5%. The major uncertainty component of method 1 is from the cross-calibration of the BPC. CONCLUSIONS: The two independent methods for DAP were shown to give consistent results, given the sources of uncertainties were carefully addressed in the measurements. Direct measurement of DAP with BPC is very efficient, but it may be subject to more than 2% systematic error if the BPC lateral response is not carefully evaluated.

Impact of planned dose reporting methods on Gamma pass rates for IROC lung and liver motion phantoms treated with pencil beam scanning protons.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of two methods of reporting planned dose distributions on the Gamma analysis pass rates for comparison with measured 2D film dose and simulated delivered 3D dose for proton pencil beam scanning treatment of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) proton lung and liver mobile phantoms. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-dimensional (4D) computed-tomography (CT) image sets were acquired for IROC proton lung and liver mobile phantoms, which include dosimetry inserts that contains targets, thermoluminescent dosimeters and EBT2 films for plan dose verification. 4DCT measured fixed motion magnitudes were 1.3 and 1.0 cm for the lung and liver phantoms, respectively. To study the effects of motion magnitude on the Gamma analysis pass rate, three motion magnitudes for each phantom were simulated by creating virtual 4DCT image sets with motion magnitudes scaled from the scanned phantom motion by 50, 100, and 200%. The internal target volumes were contoured on the maximum intensity projection CTs of the 4DCTs for the lung phantom and on the minimum intensity projection CTs of the 4DCTs for the liver phantom. Treatment plans were optimized on the average intensity projection (AVE) CTs of the 4DCTs using the RayStation treatment planning system. Plan doses were calculated on the AVE CTs, which was defined as the planned AVE dose (method one). Plan doses were also calculated on all 10 phase CTs of the 4DCTs and were registered using target alignment to and equal-weight-summed on the 50% phase (T50) CT, which was defined as the planned 4D dose (method two). The planned AVE doses and 4D doses for phantom treatment were reported to IROC, and the 2D-2D Gamma analysis pass rates for measured film dose relative to the planned AVE and 4D doses were compared. To evaluate motion interplay effects, simulated delivered doses were calculated for each plan by sorting spots into corresponding respiratory phases using spot delivery time recorded in the log files by the beam delivery system to calculate each phase dose and accumulate dose to the T50 CTs. Ten random beam starting phases were used for each beam to obtain the range of the simulated delivered dose distributions. 3D-3D Gamma analyses were performed to compare the planned 4D/AVE doses with simulated delivered doses. RESULTS: The planned 4D dose matched better with the measured 2D film dose and simulated delivered 3D dose than the planned AVE dose. Using planned 4D dose as institution reported planned dose to IROC improved IROC film dose 2D-2D Gamma analysis pass rate from 92 to 96% on average for three films for the lung phantom (7% 5 mm), and from 92 to 94% in the sagittal plane for the liver phantom (7% 4 mm), respectively, compared with using the planned AVE dose. The 3D-3D Gamma analysis (3% 3 mm) pass rate showed that the simulated delivered doses for lung and liver phantoms using 10 random beam starting phases for each delivered beam matched the planned 4D dose significantly better than the planned AVE dose for phantom motions larger than 1 cm (p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended to use the planned 4D dose as the institution reported planned dose to IROC to compare with the measured film dose for proton mobile phantoms to improve film Gamma analysis pass rate in the IROC credentialing process.

Impact of Spot Size and Spacing on the Quality of Robustly Optimized Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Plans for Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate how spot size and spacing affect plan quality, robustness, and interplay effects of robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two robustly optimized IMPT plans were created for 10 lung cancer patients: first by a large-spot machine with in-air energy-dependent large spot size at isocenter (σ: 6-15 mm) and spacing (1.3 σ), and second by a small-spot machine with in-air energy-dependent small spot size (σ: 2-6 mm) and spacing (5 mm). Both plans were generated by optimizing radiation dose to internal target volume on averaged 4-dimensional computed tomography scans using an in-house-developed IMPT planning system. The dose-volume histograms band method was used to evaluate plan robustness. Dose evaluation software was developed to model time-dependent spot delivery to incorporate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. Patient anatomy voxels were mapped phase-to-phase via deformable image registration, and doses were scored using in-house-developed software. Dose-volume histogram indices, including internal target volume dose coverage, homogeneity, and organs at risk (OARs) sparing, were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Compared with the large-spot machine, the small-spot machine resulted in significantly lower heart and esophagus mean doses, with comparable target dose coverage, homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. Plan robustness was comparable for targets and most OARs. With interplay effects considered, significantly lower heart and esophagus mean doses with comparable target dose coverage and homogeneity were observed using smaller spots. CONCLUSIONS: Robust optimization with a small spot-machine significantly improves heart and esophagus sparing, with comparable plan robustness and interplay effects compared with robust optimization with a large-spot machine. A small-spot machine uses a larger number of spots to cover the same tumors compared with a large-spot machine, which gives the planning system more freedom to compensate for the higher sensitivity to uncertainties and interplay effects for lung cancer treatments.

4D Proton treatment planning strategy for mobile lung tumors.

PURPOSE: To investigate strategies for designing compensator-based 3D proton treatment plans for mobile lung tumors using four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) images. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-dimensional CT sets for 10 lung cancer patients were used in this study. The internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) was obtained by combining the tumor volumes at different phases of the respiratory cycle. For each patient, we evaluated four planning strategies based on the following dose calculations: (1) the average (AVE) CT; (2) the free-breathing (FB) CT; (3) the maximum intensity projection (MIP) CT; and (4) the AVE CT in which the CT voxel values inside the IGTV were replaced by a constant density (AVE_RIGTV). For each strategy, the resulting cumulative dose distribution in a respiratory cycle was determined using a deformable image registration method. RESULTS: There were dosimetric differences between the apparent dose distribution, calculated on a single CT dataset, and the motion-corrected 4D dose distribution, calculated by combining dose distributions delivered to each phase of the 4DCT. The AVE_RIGTV plan using a 1-cm smearing parameter had the best overall target coverage and critical structure sparing. The MIP plan approach resulted in an unnecessarily large treatment volume. The AVE and FB plans using 1-cm smearing did not provide adequate 4D target coverage in all patients. By using a larger smearing value, adequate 4D target coverage could be achieved; however, critical organ doses were increased. CONCLUSION: The AVE_RIGTV approach is an effective strategy for designing proton treatment plans for mobile lung tumors.

Technical Note: Using experimentally determined proton spot scanning timing parameters to accurately model beam delivery time.

PURPOSE: To accurately model the beam delivery time (BDT) for a synchrotron-based proton spot scanning system using experimentally determined beam parameters. METHODS: A model to simulate the proton spot delivery sequences was constructed, and BDT was calculated by summing times for layer switch, spot switch, and spot delivery. Test plans were designed to isolate and quantify the relevant beam parameters in the operation cycle of the proton beam therapy delivery system. These parameters included the layer switch time, magnet preparation and verification time, average beam scanning speeds in x- and y-directions, proton spill rate, and maximum charge and maximum extraction time for each spill. The experimentally determined parameters, as well as the nominal values initially provided by the vendor, served as inputs to the model to predict BDTs for 602 clinical proton beam deliveries. The calculated BDTs (TBDT ) were compared with the BDTs recorded in the treatment delivery log files (TLog ): ∆t = TLog -TBDT . RESULTS: The experimentally determined average layer switch time for all 97 energies was 1.91 s (ranging from 1.9 to 2.0 s for beam energies from 71.3 to 228.8 MeV), average magnet preparation and verification time was 1.93 ms, the average scanning speeds were 5.9 m/s in x-direction and 19.3 m/s in y-direction, the proton spill rate was 8.7 MU/s, and the maximum proton charge available for one acceleration is 2.0 ± 0.4 nC. Some of the measured parameters differed from the nominal values provided by the vendor. The calculated BDTs using experimentally determined parameters matched the recorded BDTs of 602 beam deliveries (∆t = -0.49 ± 1.44 s), which were significantly more accurate than BDTs calculated using nominal timing parameters (∆t = -7.48 ± 6.97 s). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate model for BDT prediction was achieved by using the experimentally determined proton beam therapy delivery parameters, which may be useful in modeling the interplay effect and patient throughput. The model may provide guidance on how to effectively reduce BDT and may be used to identifying deteriorating machine performance.

Significant reduction of normal tissue dose by proton radiotherapy compared with three-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy in Stage I or Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare dose-volume histograms (DVH) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated by photon or proton radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dose-volume histograms were compared between photon, including three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and proton plans at doses of 66 Gy, 87.5 Gy in Stage I (n=10) and 60-63 Gy, and 74 Gy in Stage III (n=15). RESULTS: For Stage I, the mean total lung V5, V10, and V20 were 31.8%, 24.6%, and 15.8%, respectively, for photon 3D-CRT with 66 Gy, whereas they were 13.4%, 12.3%, and 10.9%, respectively, with proton with dose escalation to 87.5 cobalt Gray equivalents (CGE) (p=0.002). For Stage III, the mean total lung V5, V10, and V20 were 54.1%, 46.9%, and 34.8%, respectively, for photon 3D-CRT with 63 Gy, whereas they were 39.7%, 36.6%, and 31.6%, respectively, for proton with dose escalation to 74 CGE (p=0.002). In all cases, the doses to lung, spinal cord, heart, esophagus, and integral dose were lower with proton therapy even compared with IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Proton treatment appears to reduce dose to normal tissues significantly, even with dose escalation, compared with standard-dose photon therapy, either 3D-CRT or IMRT.

An end-to-end assessment of range uncertainty in proton therapy using animal tissues.

Accurate assessment of range uncertainty is critical in proton therapy. However, there is a lack of data and consensus on how to evaluate the appropriate amount of uncertainty. The purpose of this study is to quantify the range uncertainty in various treatment conditions in proton therapy, using transmission measurements through various animal tissues. Animal tissues, including a pig head, beef steak, and lamb leg, were used in this study. For each tissue, an end-to-end test closely imitating patient treatments was performed. This included CT scan simulation, treatment planning, image-guided alignment, and beam delivery. Radio-chromic films were placed at various depths in the distal dose falloff region to measure depth dose. Comparisons between measured and calculated doses were used to evaluate range differences. The dose difference at the distal falloff between measurement and calculation depends on tissue type and treatment conditions. The estimated range difference was up to 5, 6 and 4 mm for the pig head, beef steak, and lamb leg irradiation, respectively. Our study shows that the TPS was able to calculate proton range within about 1.5% plus 1.5 mm. Accurate assessment of range uncertainty in treatment planning would allow better optimization of proton beam treatment, thus fully achieving proton beams' superior dose advantage over conventional photon-based radiation therapy.

Use of deformed intensity distributions for on-line modification of image-guided IMRT to account for interfractional anatomic changes.

PURPOSE: Recent imaging studies have demonstrated that there can be significant changes in anatomy from day to day and over the course of radiotherapy as a result of daily positioning uncertainties and physiologic and clinical factors. There are a number of strategies to minimize such changes, reduce their impact, or correct for them. Measures to date have included improved immobilization of external and internal anatomy or adjustment of positions based on portal or ultrasound images. Perhaps the most accurate way is to use CT image-guided radiotherapy, for which the possibilities range from simple correction of setup based on daily CT images to on-line near real-time intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) replanning. In addition, there are numerous intermediate possibilities. In this paper, we report the development of one such intermediate method that takes into account anatomic changes by deforming the intensity distributions of each beam based on deformations of anatomy as seen in the beam's-eye-view. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The intensity distribution deformations are computed based on anatomy deformations discerned from the changes in the current image relative to a reference image (e.g., the pretreatment CT scan). First, a reference IMRT plan is generated based on the reference CT image. A new CT image is acquired using an in-room CT for every fraction. The anatomic structure contours are obtained for the new image. (For this article, these contours were manually drawn. When image guided IMRT methods are implemented, anatomic structure contours on subsequent images will likely be obtained with automatic or semiautomatic means. This could be achieved by, for example, first deforming the original CT image to match today's image, and then using the same deformation transformation to map original contours to today's image.) The reference intensity distributions for each beam are then deformed so that the projected geometric relationship within the beam's-eye-view between the anatomy (both target and normal tissues) extracted from the reference image and the reference intensity distribution is the same as (or as close as possible to) the corresponding relationship between anatomy derived from today's image and the newly deformed intensity distributions. To verify whether the dose distributions calculated using the deformed intensity distributions are acceptable for treatment as compared to the original intensity distributions, the deformed intensities are transformed into leaf sequences, which are then used to compute intensity and dose distributions expected to be delivered. The corresponding dose-volume histograms and dose-volume and dose-response indices are also computed. These data are compared with the corresponding data derived (a) from the original treatment plan applied to the original image, (b) from the original treatment plan applied to today's image, and (c) from a new full-fledged IMRT plan designed based on today's image. RESULTS: Depending on the degree of anatomic changes, the use of an IMRT plan designed based on the original planning CT for the treatment of the current fraction could lead to significant differences compared to the intended dose distributions. CT-guided setup compared to the setup based on skin marks or bony landmarks may improve dose distributions somewhat. Replanning IMRT based on the current fraction's image yields the best physically deliverable plan (the "gold standard"). For the prostate and head-and-neck examples studied as proof of principle, the results of deforming intensities within each beam based on the anatomy seen in the beam's-eye-view are a good approximation of full-fledged replanning compared with other alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results encourage us to believe that deforming intensities taking into account deformation in the anatomy may be a rapid way to produce new treatment plans on-line in near real-time based on daily CT images. The methods we have developed need to be applied to a group of patients for both prostate and head-and-neck cases to confirm the validity of our approach.