Postmastectomy Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: 5-Year Oncologic and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report oncologic, physician-assessed, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a group of women homogeneously treated with modern, skin-sparing multifield optimized pencil-beam scanning proton (intensity modulated proton therapy [IMPT]) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed consecutive patients who received unilateral, curative-intent, conventionally fractionated IMPT PMRT between 2015 and 2019. Strict constraints were applied to limit the dose to the skin and other organs at risk. Five-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated as part of a prospective registry at baseline, completion of PMRT, and 3 and 12 months after PMRT. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients were included. One hundred nine (86%) received chemotherapy, among whom 82 (65%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 4.1 years. Five-year locoregional control was 98.4% (95% CI, 93.6-99.6), and overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI, 78.7-96.5). Acute grade 2 and 3 dermatitis was seen in 45% and 4% of patients, respectively. Three patients (2%) experienced acute grade 3 infection, all of whom had breast reconstruction. Three late grade 3 adverse events occurred: morphea (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and seroma (n = 1). There were no cardiac or pulmonary adverse events. Among the 73 patients at risk for PMRT-associated reconstruction complications, 7 (10%) experienced reconstruction failure. Ninety-five patients (75%) enrolled in the prospective PRO registry. The only metrics to increase by >1 point were skin color (mean change: 5) and itchiness (2) at treatment completion and tightness/pulling/stretching (2) and skin color (2) at 12 months. There was no significant change in the following PROs: bleeding/leaking fluid, blistering, telangiectasia, lifting, arm extension, or bending/straightening the arm. CONCLUSIONS: With strict dose constraints to skin and organs at risk, postmastectomy IMPT was associated with excellent oncologic outcomes and PROs. Rates of skin, chest wall, and reconstruction complications compared favorably to previous proton and photon series. Postmastectomy IMPT warrants further investigation in a multi-institutional setting with careful attention to planning techniques.

A Dosimetric Comparison of Lattice, Brass, and Proton Grid Therapy Treatment Plans.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to dosimetrically compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lattice radiation therapy (LRT), brass, and proton grid therapy planning techniques and suggest potential clinical applications for each. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four plans delivering 20 Gy in 1 fraction were created for each of 22 patients. Brass and proton grid plans used a single static field and the same beam angle. Proton grid plans used the same beam size and spacing as the brass block. Two VMAT LRT plans were generated for each patient: one with 1-cm diameter lattice points spaced 2-cm center-to-center (2-cm VMAT) and another with 1.5-cm diameter lattice points spaced 3-cm center-to-center (3- cm VMAT). Maximum, minimum, mean, and equivalent uniform dose and the dose to 90%, 50%, 20%, 10%, and 5% (D90%[%], D50%[%], etc) of gross tumor volume (GTV) were reported. D10%/D90% characterized dose heterogeneity. Normal tissue dose was generalized by the maximum dose and volume in cubic centimeters of tissue outside the GTV receiving 30% and 50% of prescription (body-GTV V30%[cm3]; body-GTV V50%[cm3]). RESULTS: VMAT LRT plans delivered the highest maximum GTV doses while brass and proton plans delivered higher D5%(%), D10%(%), and D20%(%) values. D50%(%), D90%(%), and minimum dose varied little between plan types. Proton and brass plans had the highest dose heterogeneity. Two-centimeter VMAT and brass grid plans had the highest mean GTV doses. Two-centimeter VMAT plans had the highest equivalent uniform dose, followed by 3-cm VMAT, brass, and proton plans. VMAT LRT plans exhibited the lowest normal tissue maximum and body GTV V30%(cm3) and body GTV V50%(cm3) values. CONCLUSIONS: An in-depth comparison of target and normal tissue dosimetric parameters for common photon and proton grid therapy planning techniques was made. Strengths of each plan type were noted leading to general recommendations on usage.

Optimizing mini-ridge filter thickness to reduce proton treatment times in a spot-scanning synchrotron system.

PURPOSE: Study the contributors to treatment time as a function of Mini-Ridge Filter (MRF) thickness to determine the optimal choice for breath-hold treatment of lung tumors in a synchrotron-based spot-scanning proton machine. METHODS: Five different spot-scanning nozzles were simulated in TOPAS: four with MRFs of varying maximal thicknesses (6.15-24.6 mm) and one with no MRF. The MRFs were designed with ridges aligned along orthogonal directions transverse to the beam, with the number of ridges (4-16) increasing with MRF thickness. The material thickness given by these ridges approximately followed a Gaussian distribution. Using these simulations, Monte Carlo data were generated for treatment planning commissioning. For each nozzle, standard and stereotactic (SR) lung phantom treatment plans were created and assessed for delivery time and plan quality. RESULTS: Use of a MRF resulted in a reduction of the number of energy layers needed in treatment plans, decreasing the number of synchrotron spills needed and hence the treatment time. For standard plans, the treatment time per field without a MRF was 67.0 ± 0.1 s, whereas three of the four MRF plans had treatment times of less than 20 s per field; considered sufficiently low for a single breath-hold. For SR plans, the shortest treatment time achieved was 57.7 ± 1.9 s per field, compared to 95.5 ± 0.5 s without a MRF. There were diminishing gains in time reduction as the MRF thickness increased. Dose uniformity of the PTV was comparable across all plans; however, when the plans were normalized to have the same coverage, dose conformality decreased with MRF thickness, as measured by the lung V20%. CONCLUSIONS: Single breath-hold treatment times for plans with standard fractionation can be achieved through the use of a MRF, making this a viable option for motion mitigation in lung tumors. For stereotactic plans, while a MRF can reduce treatment times, multiple breath-holds would still be necessary due to the limit imposed by the proton extraction time. To balance treatment time and normal tissue dose, the ideal MRF choice was shown to be the thinnest option that is able to achieve the desired breath-hold timing.