Late Dental Toxicities After Proton Chemoradiation for Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Pediatric Case Report.

Purpose: Radiation therapy is an independent risk factor for adverse sequelae to the oral cavity and dentition in childhood cancer survivors. However, dental toxicities after radiation therapy often are underreported and there are minimal published data on disturbances in tooth development after proton beam therapy (PBT). We present the long-term clinical and radiographic dental findings 8 years after treatment completion for a patient treated with PBT and chemotherapy for rhabdomyosarcoma. Materials and Methods: Clinical follow-up data of patients treated with PBT within the Proton Overseas Programme (POP) is stored in a National Database and curated by a dedicated outcomes unit at the Christie NHS PBT center. This case report was identified from the extraction and analysis of data for pediatric head and neck cancer patients in this database for a service evaluation project. Results: The permanent dentition in this patient aged 3.5 years at the time of treatment was severely affected with abnormal dental development first observed 3.5 years after treatment completion. PBT delivered mean doses of 30 Gy(RBE = 1.1) to the maxilla and 25.9 Gy(RBE = 1.1) to the mandible. Conclusion: Significant dental development abnormalities occurred in this pediatric patient, despite doses in areas being lower than the proposed thresholds in the literature. Improved descriptions of dental toxicities and routine contouring of the maxilla and mandible are needed to correlate dosimetric data. The dose to teeth should be kept as low as reasonably possible in younger patients until the dose thresholds for dental toxicities are known.

Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS: Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS: The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.

Evaluation of GATE-RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance.

PURPOSE: Geant4 is a multi-purpose Monte Carlo simulation tool for modeling particle transport in matter. It provides a wide range of settings, which the user may optimize for their specific application. This study investigates GATE/Geant4 parameter settings for proton pencil beam scanning therapy. METHODS: GATE8.1/Geant4.10.3.p03 (matching the versions used in GATE-RTion1.0) simulations were performed with a set of prebuilt Geant4 physics lists (QGSP_BIC, QGSP_BIC_EMY, QGSP_BIC_EMZ, QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ), using 0.1mm-10mm as production cuts on secondary particles (electrons, photons, positrons) and varying the maximum step size of protons (0.1mm, 1mm, none). The results of the simulations were compared to measurement data taken during clinical patient specific quality assurance at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust pencil beam scanning proton therapy facility. Additionally, the influence of simulation settings was quantified in a realistic patient anatomy based on computer tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS: When comparing the different physics lists, only the results (ranges in water) obtained with QGSP_BIC (G4EMStandardPhysics_Option0) depend on the maximum step size. There is clinically negligible difference in the target region when using High Precision neutron models (HP) for dose calculations. The EMZ electromagnetic constructor provides a closer agreement (within 0.35 mm) to measured beam sizes in air, but yields up to 20% longer execution times compared to the EMY electromagnetic constructor (maximum beam size difference 0.79 mm). The impact of this on patient-specific quality assurance simulations is clinically negligible, with a 97% average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for both physics lists. However, when considering the CT-based patient model, dose deviations up to 2.4% are observed. Production cuts do not substantially influence dosimetric results in solid water, but lead to dose differences of up to 4.1% in the patient CT. Small (compared to voxel size) production cuts increase execution times by factors of 5 (solid water) and 2 (patient CT). CONCLUSIONS: Taking both efficiency and dose accuracy into account and considering voxel sizes with 2 mm linear size, the authors recommend the following Geant4 settings to simulate patient specific quality assurance measurements: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (in the phantom and range-shifter) and 10 mm (world); best agreement to measurement data was found for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list at the cost of 20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY. For simulations considering the patient CT model, the following settings are recommended: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (phantom/range-shifter) and 10 mm (world) if the goal is to achieve sufficient dosimetric accuracy to ensure that a plan is clinically safe; or 0.1 mm (phantom/range-shifter) and 1 mm (world) if higher dosimetric accuracy is needed (increasing execution times by a factor of 2); most accurate results expected for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list, at the cost of 10-20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY.

Automated Monte-Carlo re-calculation of proton therapy plans using Geant4/Gate: implementation and comparison to plan-specific quality assurance measurements.

OBJECTIVES: Software re-calculation of proton pencil beam scanning plans provides a method of verifying treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations prior to patient treatment. This study describes the implementation of AutoMC, a Geant4 v10.3.3/Gate v8.1 (Gate-RTion v1.0)-based Monte-Carlo (MC) system for automated plan re-calculation, and presents verification results for 153 patients (730 fields) planned within year one of the proton service at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. METHODS: A MC beam model for a Varian ProBeam delivery system with four range-shifter options (none, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm) was derived from beam commissioning data and implemented in AutoMC. MC and TPS (Varian Eclipse v13.7) calculations of 730 fields in solid-water were compared to physical plan-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements acquired using a PTW Octavius 1500XDR array and PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D ion chamber. RESULTS: TPS and MC showed good agreement with array measurements, evaluated using γ analyses at 3%, 3 mm with a 10% lower dose threshold:>94% of fields calculated by the TPS and >99% of fields calculated by MC had γ ≤ 1 for>95% of measurement points within the plane. TPS and MC also showed good agreement with chamber measurements of absolute dose, with systematic differences of <1.5% for all range-shifter options. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable independent verification of the TPS dose calculation is a valuable complement to physical PSQA and may facilitate reduction of the physical PSQA workload alongside a thorough delivery system quality assurance programme. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A Gate/Geant4-based MC system is thoroughly validated against an extensive physical PSQA dataset for 730 clinical fields, showing that clinical implementation of MC for PSQA is feasible.