First direct machine-specific parameters incorporated in Spot-scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) optimization algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Spot-scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) has been of significant interest in recent years because of its superior plan quality. Currently, the primary focus of research and development is on deliverability and treatment efficiency. PURPOSE: To address the challenges in generating a deliverable and efficient SPArc plan for a proton therapy system with a massive gantry, we developed a novel SPArc optimization algorithm (SPArcDMPO ) by directly incorporating the machine-specific parameters such as gantry mechanical constraints and proton delivery sequence. METHODS: SPArc delivery sequence model (DSMarc ) was built based on the machine-specific parameters of the prototype arc delivery system, IBA ProteusONE®, including mechanical constraint (maximum gantry speed, acceleration, and deceleration) and proton delivery sequence (energy and spot delivery sequence, and irradiation time). SPArcDMPO resamples and adjusts each control point's delivery speed based on the DSMarc calculation through the iterative approach. In SPArcDMPO, users could set a reasonable arc delivery time during the plan optimization, which aims to minimize the gantry momentum changes and improve the delivery efficiency. Ten cases were selected to test SPArcDMPO . Two kinds of SPArc plans were generated using the same planning objective functions: (1) original SPArc plan (SPArcoriginal ); (2) SPArcDMPO plan with a user-pre-defined delivery time. Additionally, arc delivery sequence was simulated based on the DSMarc and was compared. Treatment delivery time was compared between SPArcoriginal and SPArcDMPO . Dynamic arc delivery time, the static irradiation time, and its corresponding time differential (time differential = dynamic arc delivery time-static irradiation time) were analyzed, respectively. The total gantry velocity change was accumulated throughout the treatment delivery. RESULTS: With a similar plan quality, objective value, number of energy layers, and spots, both SPArcoriginal and SPArcDMPO plans could be delivered continuously within the ± 1 degree tolerance window. However, compared to the SPArcoriginal , the strategy of SPArcDMPO is able to reduce the time differential from 30.55 ± 11.42%(90 ± 32 s) to 14.67 ± 6.97%(42 ± 20 s), p < 0.01. Furthermore, the corresponding total variations of gantry velocity during dynamic arc delivery are mitigated (SPArcoriginal vs. SPArcDMPO ) from 14.73 ± 9.14 degree/s to 4.28 ± 2.42 degree/s, p < 0.01. Consequently, the SPArcDMPO plans could minimize the gantry momentum change based on the clinical user's input compared to the SPArcoriginal plans, which could help relieve the mechanical challenge of accelerating or decelerating the massive proton gantry. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, clinical users not only could generate a SPArc plan meeting the mechanical constraint of their proton system but also directly control the arc treatment speed and momentum changes of the gantry during the plan optimization process. This work paved the way for the routine clinical implementation of proton arc therapy in the treatment planning system.

Impact of and interplay between proton arc therapy and range uncertainties in proton therapy for head-and-neck cancer.

Objective. Proton therapy reduces the integral dose to the patient compared to conventional photon treatments. However,in vivoproton range uncertainties remain a considerable hurdle. Range uncertainty reduction benefits depend on clinical practices. During intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), the target is irradiated from only a few directions, but proton arc therapy (PAT), for which the target is irradiated from dozens of angles, may see clinical implementation by the time considerable range uncertainty reductions are achieved. It is therefore crucial to determine the impact of PAT on range uncertainty reduction benefits.Approach. For twenty head-and-neck cancer patients, four different treatment plans were created: an IMPT and a PAT treatment plan assuming current clinical range uncertainties of 3.5% (IMPT3.5%and PAT3.5%), and an IMPT and a PAT treatment plan assuming that range uncertainties can be reduced to 1% (IMPT1%and PAT1%). Plans were evaluated with respect to target coverage and organ-at-risk doses as well as normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) for parotid glands (endpoint: parotid gland flow <25%) and larynx (endpoint: larynx edema).Main results. Implementation of PAT (IMPT3.5%-PAT3.5%) reduced mean NTCPs in the nominal and worst-case scenario by 3.2 percentage points (pp) and 4.2 pp, respectively. Reducing range uncertainties from 3.5% to 1% during use of IMPT (IMPT3.5%-IMPT1%) reduced evaluated NTCPs by 0.9 pp and 2.0 pp. Benefits of range uncertainty reductions subsequently to PAT implementation (PAT3.5%-PAT1%) were 0.2 pp and 1.0 pp, with considerably higher benefits in bilateral compared to unilateral cases.Significance. The mean clinical benefit of implementing PAT was more than twice as high as the benefit of a 3.5%-1% range uncertainty reduction. Range uncertainty reductions are expected to remain beneficial even after PAT implementation, especially in cases with target positions allowing for full leveraging of the higher number of gantry angles during PAT.

The first investigation of spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) delivery time and accuracy with different delivery tolerance window settings.

Objective. To investigate the impact of various delivery tolerance window settings on the treatment delivery time and dosimetric accuracy of spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy.Approach. SPArc plans were generated for three representative disease sites (brain, lung, and liver cancer) with an angle sampling frequency of 2.5°. An in-house dynamic arc controller was used to simulate the arc treatment delivery with various tolerance windows (±0.25, ±0.5, ±1, and ±1.25°). The controller generates virtual logfiles during the arc delivery simulation, such as gantry speed, acceleration and deceleration, spot position, and delivery sequence, similar to machine logfiles. The virtual logfile was then imported to the treatment planning system to reconstruct the delivered dose distribution and compare it to the initial SPArc nominal plan. A three-dimensional gamma index was used to quantitatively assess delivery accuracy. Total treatment delivery time and relative lost time (dynamic arc delivery time-fix beam delivery time)/fix beam delivery time) were reported.Main Results. The 3D gamma passing rate (GPR) was greater than 99% for all cases when using 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria and the GPR (1%/1 mm criteria) degraded as the tolerance window opens. The total delivery time for dynamic arc delivery increased with the decreasing delivery tolerance window length. The average delivery time and the relative lost time (%) were 630 ± 212 s (253% ± 68%), 322 ± 101 s (81% ± 31%), 225 ± 60 s (27% ± 16%), 196 ± 41 s (11% ± 6%), 187 ± 29 s (6% ± 1%) for tolerance windows ±0.25, ±0.5, ±1, and ±1.25° respectively.Significance. The study quantitatively analyzed the dynamic SPArc delivery time and accuracy with different delivery tolerance window settings, which offer a critical reference in the future SPArc plan optimization and delivery controller design.