A comparison of the dose distributions from three proton treatment planning systems in the planning of meningioma patients with single-field uniform dose pencil beam scanning.

With the number of new proton centers increasing rapidly, there is a need for an assessment of the available proton treatment planning systems (TPSs). This study compares the dose distributions of complex meningioma plans produced by three proton TPSs: Eclipse, Pinnacle3, and XiO. All three systems were commissioned with the same beam data and, as best as possible, matched configuration settings. Proton treatment plans for ten patients were produced on each system with a pencil beam scanning, single-field uniform dose approach, using a fixed horizontal beamline. All 30 plans were subjected to identical dose constraints, both for the target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing, with a consistent order of priority. Beam geometry, lateral field margins, and lateral spot resolutions were made consistent across all systems. Few statistically significant differences were found between the target coverage and OAR sparing of each system, with all optimizers managing to produce plans within clinical tolerances (D2 < 107% of prescribed dose, D5 < 105%, D95 > 95%, D99 > 90%, and OAR maximum doses) despite strict constraints and overlapping structures.

A probability model for anatomical robust optimisation in head and neck cancer proton therapy.

Objective.Develop an anatomical model based on the statistics of the population data and evaluate the model for anatomical robust optimisation in head and neck cancer proton therapy.Approach.Deformable image registration was used to build the probability model (PM) that captured the major deformation from patient population data and quantified the probability of each deformation. A cohort of 20 nasopharynx patients was included in this retrospective study. Each patient had a planning CT and 6 weekly CTs during radiotherapy. We applied the model to 5 test patients. Each test patient used the remaining 19 training patients to build the PM and estimate the likelihood of a certain anatomical deformation to happen. For each test patient, a spot scanning proton plan was created. The PM was evaluated using proton spot location deviation and dose distribution.Main results. Using the proton spot range, the PM can simulate small non-rigid variations in the first treatment week within 0.21 ± 0.13 mm. For overall anatomical uncertainty prediction, the PM can reduce anatomical uncertainty from 4.47 ± 1.23 mm (no model) to 1.49 ± 1.08 mm at week 6. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of dose metric variations caused by actual anatomical deformations in the first week is -0.59% ∼ -0.31% for low-risk CTD95, and 0.84-3.04 Gy for parotidDmean. On the other hand, the 95% CI of dose metric variations simulated by the PM at the first week is -0.52 ∼ -0.34% for low-risk CTVD95, and 0.58 ∼ 2.22 Gy for parotidDmean.Significance.The PM improves the estimation accuracy of anatomical uncertainty compared to the previous models and does not depend on the acquisition of the weekly CTs during the treatment. We also provided a solution to quantify the probability of an anatomical deformation. The potential of the model for anatomical robust optimisation is discussed.

Improving workflow for adaptive proton therapy with predictive anatomical modelling: A proof of concept.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate predictive anatomical modelling for improving the clinical workflow of adaptive intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck cancer. METHODS: 10 radiotherapy patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were included in this retrospective study. Each patient had a planning CT, weekly verification CTs during radiotherapy and predicted weekly CTs from our anatomical model. Predicted CTs were used to create predicted adaptive plans in advance with the aim of maintaining clinically acceptable dosimetry. Adaption was triggered when the increase in mean dose (Dmean) to the parotid glands exceeded 3 Gy(RBE). We compared the accumulated dose of two adaptive IMPT strategies: 1) Predicted plan adaption: One adaptive plan per patient was optimised on a predicted CT triggered by replan criteria. 2) Standard replan: One adaptive plan was created reactively in response to the triggering weekly CT. RESULTS: Statistical analysis demonstrates that the accumulated dose differences between two adaptive strategies are not significant (p > 0.05) for CTVs and OARs. We observed no meaningful differences in D95 between the accumulated dose and the planned dose for the CTVs, with mean differences to the high-risk CTV of -1.20 %, -1.23 % and -1.25 % for no adaption, standard and predicted plan adaption, respectively. The accumulated parotid Dmean using predicted plan adaption is within 3 Gy(RBE) of the planned dose and 0.31 Gy(RBE) lower than the standard replan approach on average. CONCLUSION: Prediction-based replanning could potentially enable adaptive therapy to be delivered without treatment gaps or sub-optimal fractions, as can occur during a standard replanning strategy, though the benefit of using predicted plan adaption over the standard replan was not shown to be statistically significant with respect to accumulated dose in this study. Nonetheless, a predictive replan approach can offer advantages in improving clinical workflow efficiency.

DIR-based models to predict weekly anatomical changes in head and neck cancer proton therapy.

Objective. We proposed two anatomical models for head and neck patients to predict anatomical changes during the course of radiotherapy.Approach. Deformable image registration was used to build two anatomical models: (1) the average model (AM) simulated systematic progressive changes across the patient cohort; (2) the refined individual model (RIM) used a patient's CT images acquired during treatment to update the prediction for each individual patient. Planning CTs and weekly CTs were used from 20 nasopharynx patients. This dataset included 15 training patients and 5 test patients. For each test patient, a spot scanning proton plan was created. Models were evaluated using CT number differences, contours, proton spot location deviations and dose distributions.Main results. If no model was used, the CT number difference between the planning CT and the repeat CT at week 6 of treatment was on average 128.9 Hounsfield Units (HU) over the test population. This can be reduced to 115.5 HU using the AM, and to 110.5 HU using the RIM3(RIM, updated at week (3). When the predicted contours from the models were used, the average mean surface distance of parotid glands can be reduced from 1.98 (no model) to 1.16 mm (AM) and 1.19 mm (RIM3) at week 6. Using the proton spot range, the average anatomical uncertainty over the test population reduced from 4.47 ± 1.23 (no model) to 2.41 ± 1.12 mm (AM), and 1.89 ± 0.96 mm (RIM3). Based on the gamma analysis, the average gamma index over the test patients was improved from 93.87 ± 2.48 % (no model) to 96.16 ± 1.84% (RIM3) at week 6.Significance. The AM and the RIM both demonstrated the ability to predict anatomical changes during the treatment. The RIM can gradually refine the prediction of anatomical changes based on the AM. The proton beam spots provided an accurate and effective way for uncertainty evaluation.

Pre-treatment analysis of non-rigid variations can assist robust intensity-modulated proton therapy plan selection for head and neck patients.

PURPOSE: To incorporate small non-rigid variations of head and neck patients into the robust evaluation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for the selection of robust treatment plans. METHODS: A cohort of 20 nasopharynx cancer patients with weekly kilovoltage CT (kVCT) and 15 oropharynx cancer patients with weekly cone-beam CT (CBCT) were retrospectively included. Anatomical variations between week 0/week 1 of treatment were acquired using deformable image registration (DIR) for all 35 patients and then applied to the planning CT of four patients who have kVCT scanned each week to simulate potential small non-rigid variations (sNRVs). The robust evaluations were conducted on IMPT plans with: (1) different number of beam fields from 3-field to 5-field; (2) different beam angles. The robust evaluation before treatment, including the sNRVs and setup uncertainty, referred to as sNRV+R evaluation was compared with the conventional evaluation (without sNRVs) in terms of robustness consistency with the gold standard evaluation based on weekly CT. RESULTS: Among four patients (490 scenarios), we observed a maximum difference in the sNRV+R evaluation to the nominal dose of: 9.37% dose degradation on D95 of clinical target volumes (CTVs), increase in mean dose (D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ ) of parotid 11.87 Gy, increase in max dose (D max $_{\text{max}}$ ) of brainstem 20.82 Gy. In contrast, in conventional evaluation, we observed a maximum difference to the nominal dose of: 7.58% dose degradation on D95 of the CTVs, increase in parotid D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ by 4.88 Gy, increase in brainstem D max $_{\text{max}}$ by 13.5 Gy. In the measurement of the robustness ranking consistency with the gold standard evaluation, the sNRV+R evaluation was better or equal to the conventional evaluation in 77% of cases, particularly, better on spinal cord, parotid glands, and low-risk CTV. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the additional dose discrepancy that sNRVs can make. The inclusion of sNRVs can be beneficial to robust evaluation, providing information on clinical uncertainties additional to the conventional rigid isocenter shift.

Impact of varying planning parameters on proton pencil beam scanning dose distributions in four commercial treatment planning systems.

PURPOSE: In pencil beam scanning proton therapy, target coverage is achieved by scanning the pencil beam laterally in the x- and y-directions and delivering spots of dose to positions at a given radiological depth (layer). Dose is delivered to the spots on different layers by pencil beams of different energy until the entire volume has been irradiated. The aim of this study is to investigate the implementation of proton planning parameters (spot spacing, layer spacing and margins) in four commercial proton treatment planning systems (TPSs): Eclipse, Pinnacle3 , RayStation and XiO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using identical beam data in each TPS, plans were created on uniform material synthetic phantoms with cubic targets. The following parameters were systematically varied in each TPS to observe their different implementations: spot spacing, layer spacing and margin. Additionally, plans were created in Eclipse to investigate the impact of these parameters on plan delivery and optimal values are suggested. RESULTS: It was found that all systems except Eclipse use a variable layer spacing per beam, based on the Bragg peak width of each energy layer. It is recommended that if this cannot be used, then a constant value of 5 mm will ensure good dose homogeneity. Only RayStation varies the spot spacing according to the variable spot size with depth. If a constant spot spacing is to be used, a value of 5 mm is recommended as a good compromise between dose homogeneity, plan robustness and planning time. It was found that both Pinnacle3 and RayStation position spots outside of the defined volume (target plus margin). CONCLUSIONS: All four systems are capable of delivering uniform dose distributions to simple targets, but their implementation of the various planning parameters is different. In this paper comparisons are made between the four systems and recommendations are made as to the values that will provide the best compromise in dose homogeneity and planning time.