Reducing Heart Dose with Protons and Cardiac Substructure Sparing for Mediastinal Lymphoma Treatment.

PURPOSE: Electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography with coronary angiography can be used for cardiac substructure sparing (CSS) optimization, which identifies and improves avoidance of cardiac substructures when treating with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). We investigated whether intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) would further reduce dose to cardiac substructures for patients with mediastinal lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with mediastinal lymphoma were enrolled and underwent electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography angiography during or shortly after simulation for radiotherapy planning. Thirteen patients with delineated cardiac substructures underwent comparative planning with both IMPT and IMRT. Plans were normalized for equivalent (95%) target volume coverage for treatment comparison. RESULTS: Thirteen patients met criteria for this study. The median size of the mediastinal lymphadenopathy was 7.9 cm at the greatest diameter. Compared with IMRT-CSS, IMPT-CSS significantly reduced mean dose to all cardiac substructures, including 3 coronary arteries and 4 cardiac valves. Use of IMPT significantly reduced average whole-heart dose from 9.6 to 4.9 Gy (P < .0001), and average mean lung dose was 9.7 vs 5.8 Gy (P < .0001). Prospectively defined clinically meaningful improvement was observed in at least 1 coronary artery in 9 patients (69%), at least 1 cardiac valve in 10 patients (77%), and whole heart in all 13 patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with mediastinal lymphoma, IMPT-CSS treatment planning significantly reduced radiation dose to cardiac substructures. The significant improvements outlined in this study for proton therapy suggest possible clinical improvement in alignment with previous analyses of CSS optimization.

Electrocardiogram-Gated Computed Tomography with Coronary Angiography for Cardiac Substructure Delineation and Sparing in Patients with Mediastinal Lymphomas Treated with Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: (1) Demonstrate feasibility of electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography with coronary angiography (E-CTA) in treatment planning for mediastinal lymphoma and (2) assess whether inclusion of cardiac substructures in the radiation plan optimization (CSS optimization) results in increased cardiac substructure sparing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with mediastinal lymphomas requiring radiation therapy were prospectively enrolled in an observational study. Patients completed a treatment planning computed tomography scan and E-CTA in the deep inspiration breath hold position. Avoidance structures (eg, coronary arteries and cardiac valves) were created in systole and diastole and then merged into a single planning organ-at-risk volume based on a cardiac substructure contouring atlas. In the photon cohort, 2 volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were created per patient with and without CSS optimization. Dosimetric endpoints were compared. RESULTS: In the photon cohort, 7 patients were enrolled. For all 7 patients, the treating physician elected to use the CSS optimization plan. At the individual level, 2 patients had reductions of 10.8% and 16.2% of the right coronary artery receiving at least 15 Gy, and 1 had a reduction of 9.6% of the left anterior descending artery receiving 30 Gy. No other differences for coronary arteries were detected between 15 and 30 Gy. Conversely, 5 of 7 patients had >10% reductions in dose between 15 to 30 Gy to at least 1 cardiac valve. The greatest reduction was 22.8% of the aortic valve receiving at least 30 Gy for 1 patient. At the cohort level, the maximum, mean, and 5-Gy increment analyses were nominally similar between planning techniques for all cardiac substructures and the lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac substructure delineation using E-CTA was feasible, and inclusion in optimization led to modest improvements in sparing of radiosensitive cardiac substructures for some patients.

Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Brain Tumors using Robotic Radiation Delivery System and Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study recruited 2 centers with expertise in treating pediatric brain tumors with robotic radiation delivery system photon therapy and proton therapy, respectively, to study the plan quality and dose deposition characteristics of robotic radiation delivery system photon therapy and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 18 patients clinically treated with the robotic radiation delivery system were planned with IMPT. Cases were planned per the standard of care of each institution but respected the same planning objectives. The comparison included 3 aspects: plan quality, dose fall-off characteristics around the target volume, and the volume of the high-, intermediate-, and low-dose baths. RESULTS: All robotic radiation delivery system and IMPT plans met the planning objectives. However, IMPT significantly reduced the maximum dose to organs at risk away from the planning target volume (PTV), such as the cochlea and eye (P < .05), and the mean dose to the normal brain (P < .05). No statistically significant difference was observed in the maximum dose to the optical pathway and brain stem. Robotic radiation delivery system plans demonstrated a sharper dose fall-off within 5 mm around the PTV (P < .05), whereas IMPT significantly lowered the dose to the normal tissue beyond 10 mm from the PTV (P < .05). The robotic radiation delivery system offers a smaller high-dose bath whereas IMPT offers a smaller low-dose bath (P < .05). However, the difference in intermediate dose is not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In general, robotic radiation delivery system plans exhibit reduced high-dose exposure to normal tissue, and IMPT plans have considerably smaller volumes of low-dose exposure with differences in medium-range dose baths increasingly favoring protons as tumor size increases.

Clinical Implementation of Robust Optimization for Craniospinal Irradiation.

With robust optimization for spot scanning proton therapy now commercially available, the ability exists to account for setup, range, and interfield uncertainties during optimization. Robust optimization is particularly beneficial for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) where the large target volume lends itself to larger setup uncertainties and the need for robust match lines can all be handled with the uncertainty parameters found inside the optimizer. Suggested robust optimization settings, parameters, and image guidance for CSI patients using proton therapy spot scanning are provided. Useful structures are defined and described. Suggestions are given for perturbations to be entered into the optimizer in order to achieve a plan that provides robust target volume coverage and critical structure sparing as well as a robust match line. Interfield offset effects, a concern when using multifield optimization, can also be addressed within the robust optimizer. A robust optimizer can successfully be employed to produce robust match lines, target volume coverage, and critical structure sparing under specified uncertainties. The robust optimizer can also be used to reduce effects arising from interfield uncertainties. Using robust optimization, a plan robust against setup, range, and interfield uncertainties for craniospinal treatments can be created. Utilizing robust optimization allows one to ensure critical structures are spared and target volumes are covered under the desired uncertainty parameters.

Comparison of two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam.

PURPOSE: Delayed charge is a small amount of charge that is delivered to the patient after the planned irradiation is halted, which may degrade the quality of the treatment by delivering unwarranted dose to the patient. This study compares two methods for minimizing the effect of delayed charge on the dose delivered with a synchrotron based discrete spot scanning proton beam. METHODS: The delivery of several treatment plans was simulated by applying a normally distributed value of delayed charge, with a mean of 0.001(SD 0.00025) MU, to each spot. Two correction methods were used to account for the delayed charge. Method one (CM1), which is in active clinical use, accounts for the delayed charge by adjusting the MU of the current spot based on the cumulative MU. Method two (CM2) in addition reduces the planned MU by a predicted value. Every fraction of a treatment was simulated using each method and then recomputed in the treatment planning system. The dose difference between the original plan and the sum of the simulated fractions was evaluated. Both methods were tested in a water phantom with a single beam and simple target geometry. Two separate phantom tests were performed. In one test the dose per fraction was varied from 0.5 to 2 Gy using 25 fractions per plan. In the other test the number fractions were varied from 1 to 25, using 2 Gy per fraction. Three patient plans were used to determine the effect of delayed charge on the delivered dose under realistic clinical conditions. The order of spot delivery using CM1 was investigated by randomly selecting the starting spot for each layer, and by alternating per layer the starting spot from first to last. Only discrete spot scanning was considered in this study. RESULTS: Using the phantom setup and varying the dose per fraction, the maximum dose difference for each plan of 25 fractions was 0.37-0.39 Gy and 0.03-0.05 Gy for CM1 and CM2, respectively. While varying the total number of fractions, the maximum dose difference increased at a rate of 0.015 Gy and 0.0018 Gy per fraction for CM1 and CM2, respectively. For CM1, the largest dose difference was found at the location of the first spot in each energy layer, whereas for CM2 the difference in dose was small and showed no dependence on location. For CM1, all of the fields in the patient plans had an area where their excess dose overlapped. No such correlation was found when using CM2. Randomly selecting the starting spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.15 Gy. Alternating between first and last spot reduces the maximum dose difference from 0.708 to 0.37 Gy. In the patient plans the excess dose scaled linearly at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1 and standard delivery order. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive model CM2 is superior to a cumulative irradiation model CM1 for minimizing the effects of delayed charge, particularly when considering maximal dose discrepancies and the potential for unplanned hot-spots. This study shows that the dose discrepancy potentially scales at 0.014 Gy per field per fraction for CM1.