Proton vs. photon radiotherapy for MR-guided dose escalation of intraprostatic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Dose escalation has been associated with improved biochemical control for prostate cancer. Focusing the high dose on the MRI-defined intraprostatic lesions (IL) could spare the surrounding organs at risk and hence allow further escalation. We compare treatment efficacy between state-of-the-art focally-boosted proton and photon-based radiotherapy, and investigate possible predictive guidelines regarding individualized treatment prescriptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten prostate cancer patients with well-defined ILs were selected. Multiparametric MRI was used to delineate ILs, which were transferred to the planning CT via image registration. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans, were created for each patient. Each modality featured 6 plans: (1) moderately hypofractionated dose: 70 Gy to the prostate in 28 fractions, (2)-(6) plan 1 plus additional simultaneous-integrated-boost to ILs to 75.6, 81.2, 86.6, 98 and 112 Gy in 28 fractions. Equivalent dose to 2 Gy-per-fraction (EqD2) was used to calculate tumor control (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for ILs and organs-at-risk. RESULTS: For both modalities, the maximum necessary dose to achieve TCP > 99% was 98 Gy for very high-risk ILs. For lower risk ILs lower doses were sufficient. NTCP was <25% and 35% for protons and photons at the maximum dose escalation, respectively. For the cases and beam characteristics considered, proton therapy was dosimetrically superior when IL was >4 cc or located <2.5 mm from the rectum. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrated the potential role for proton therapy in the setting of prostate focal dose escalation. We propose that anatomical characteristic could be used as criteria to identify patients who would benefit from proton treatment.

Visual Outcomes after Proton Beam Irradiation for Choroidal Melanomas Involving the Fovea.

PURPOSE: To report visual outcomes in patients undergoing proton beam irradiation of tumors located within 1 disc diameter of the fovea. DESIGN: Retrospective review. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with choroidal melanoma involving the fovea treated with proton beam therapy between 1975 and 2009. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-one patients with choroidal melanomas located 1 disc diameter (DD) or less from the fovea and more than 1 DD away from the optic nerve were included in this study. In a subgroup of 203 of the patients with small and medium choroidal melanomas, the effect of a reduced dose of radiation, 50 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) versus 70 Gy (RBE), on visual outcomes was analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were performed to calculate cumulative rates of vision loss and to assess risk factors for vision loss, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity and radiation complications, which included radiation maculopathy, papillopathy, retinal detachment, and rubeosis, were assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-one patients were included in this study with a mean follow-up time of 68.7 months. More than one-third of patients (35.5%) retained 20/200 or better vision 5 years after proton beam irradiation. For those patients with a baseline visual acuity of 20/40 or better, 16.2% of patients retained this level of vision 5 years after proton beam irradiation. Tumor height less than 5 mm and baseline visual acuity 20/40 or better were associated significantly with a better visual outcome (P < 0.001). More than two-thirds (70.4%) of patients receiving 50 Gy (RBE) and nearly half (45.1%) of patients receiving 70 Gy (RBE) retained 20/200 or better vision 5 years after treatment, but this difference was not significant. Approximately 20% of patients with these smaller macular tumors retained 20/40 vision or better 5 years after irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this retrospective analysis demonstrate that despite receiving a full dose of radiation to the fovea, many patients with choroidal melanoma with foveal involvement maintain useful vision. A radiation dose reduction from 70 to 50 Gy (RBE) did not seem to increase the proportion of patients who retain usable vision.

Modernization of safety environment for a dedicated beamline for proton ocular therapy.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy is an effective treatment for ocular melanoma, and other tumors of the eye. The fixed horizontal beamline dedicated to ocular treatments at Massachusetts General Hospital was originally commissioned in 2002, with much of the equipment, safety features, and practices dating back to an earlier implementation at Harvard Cyclotron in the 1970s. PURPOSE: To describe the experience of reevaluation and enhancement of the safety environment for one of the longest continuously operating proton therapy programs. METHODS: Several enhancements in quality control had been introduced throughout the years of operation, as described in this manuscript, to better align the practice with the evolving standards of proton therapy and the demands of a modern hospital. We spotlight the design and results of the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), and subsequent actions introduced to mitigate the modes associated with elevated risk. The findings of the FMEA informed the specifications for the new software application, which facilitated the improved management of the treatment workflow and the image-guidance aspects of ocular treatments. RESULTS: Eleven failure modes identified as having the highest risk are described. Six of these were mitigated with the clinical roll-out of a new application for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Others were addressed through task automation, the broader introduction of checklists, and enhancements in pre-treatment staff-led time-out. CONCLUSIONS: Throughout the task of modernizing the safety system of our dedicated ocular beamline, FMEA proved to be an effective instrument in soliciting inputs from the staff about safety and workflow concerns, helping to identify steps associated with elevated failure risks. Risks were reduced with the clinical introduction of a new IGRT application, which integrates quality management tools widely recognized for their role in risk mitigation: automation of the data transfer and workflow steps, and with the introduction of checklists and redundancy cross-checks.

Outcomes after Proton Beam Irradiation in Patients with Choroidal Melanoma Eligible for Investigational AU-011 Treatment.

Introduction: Vision loss is common in patients treated with radiotherapy for uveal melanoma. With proton beam irradiation (PBI), the prescribed dose is delivered to the tumor with a sharp dose reduction outside the target volume. However, radiation complications are likely to develop when tumors are located near the optic nerve or fovea. Treatment with light-activated AU-011 (belzupacap sarotalocan), an investigational drug which specifically targets tumor cells, may avoid these complications. We evaluated outcomes in a historical group of patients who fit eligibility criteria for AU-011 therapy and were treated with PBI. Methods: A consecutive series of patients who received PBI for small choroidal melanoma at a single center between 1986 and 2016 were identified. Consistent with eligibility criteria in clinical trials of AU-011, patients were included when tumor dimensions did not exceed 2.5 mm in maximum thickness and 10.0 mm in largest basal diameter (LBD). Snellen visual acuities were converted to logMAR for analysis. Visual acuity outcomes were analyzed in patients with an initial acuity of logMAR 0.7 or better (equivalent to Snellen 20/100). Rates of visual acuity loss and mortality were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Acuity loss by tumor location was compared using log-rank testing. Rates of tumor recurrence, neovascular glaucoma (NVG), and eye loss were also described. Results: Two hundred and 22 patients were included in the study. The median age was 60.7 years (range 21.3-94.8 years). Median tumor thickness was 2.0 mm (range 1.2-2.5 mm), and median LBD was 8.0 mm (range 4.0-10.0 mm). Median follow-up was 6.9 years (range 1.0-30.2 years). In 204 patients with a baseline logMAR visual acuity of 0.7 or better, the mean baseline acuity was 0.15 (equivalent to Snellen 20/25), which decreased to 0.52 (approximately Snellen 20/70) by 5 years after PBI. Visual outcomes were significantly worse for patients with tumors located within 3 mm of the optic disc and/or fovea. Tumor recurrence (1.4%), NVG (4.5%), and eye loss (2.7%) were uncommon. Discussion: Despite the advantageous dose distribution of protons, over half of patients with small choroidal melanomas located near the optic disc or fovea had a visual acuity equivalent to 20/80 or worse at 5 years after PBI. Treatment with AU-011 may allow better vision preservation in small tumors that carry a high risk of vision loss with radiotherapy.

A Systematic Comparison of Dose Distributions Delivered in 125I Plaque Brachytherapy and Proton Radiation Therapy for Ocular Melanoma.

PURPOSE: To characterize dose distributions with 125I plaque brachytherapy compared with proton radiation therapy for ocular melanoma for relevant clinical scenarios, based on tumor base diameter (d), apical height (h), and location. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Plaque and proton treatment plans were created for 4 groups of cases: (1) REF: 39 instances of reference midsize circular-base tumor (d = 12 mm, h = 5 mm), in locations varying by retinal clock hours and distance to fovea, optic disc, and corneal limbus; (2) SUP: 25 superiorly located; (3) TEMP: 25 temporal; and (4) NAS: 25 nasally located tumors that were a fixed distance from the fovea but varying in d (6-18 mm) and h (3-11 mm). For both modalities, 111 unique scenarios were characterized in terms of the distance to points of interest, doses delivered to fovea, optic disc, optic nerve at 3 mm posterior to the disc (ON@3mm), lens, and retina. Comparative statistical evaluation was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Superior dose distributions favored plaque for sparing of (1) fovea in large (d + h ≥ 21 mm) NAS tumors; (2) ON@3mm in REF cases located ≤4 disc diameters from disc, and in NAS overall. Protons achieved superior dose sparing of (1) fovea and optic disc in REF, SUP, and TEMP; (2) ON@3mm in REF >4 disc diameters from disc, and in SUP and TEMP; and (3) the lens center overall and lens periphery in REF ≤6 mm from the corneal limbus, and in TEMP with h = 3 mm. Although protons could completely spare sections of the retina, plaque dose was more target conformal in the high-dose range (50% and 90% of prescription dose). CONCLUSIONS: Although comparison between plaque and proton therapy is not straightforward because of the disparity in dose rate, prescriptions, applicators, and delivery techniques, it is possible to identify distinctions between dose distributions, which could help inform decisions by providers and patients.

A Comparison of Treatment Outcomes after Standard Dose (70 Gy) versus Reduced Dose (50 Gy) Proton Radiation in Patients with Uveal Melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in a large patient cohort with small-medium tumors located within 1 disc diameter (DD) of the optic nerve and/or fovea treated with 50 Gy or 70 Gy proton therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: A total of 1120 patients with uveal melanomas ≤ 15 mm in largest basal diameter, ≤ 5 mm in height, located within 1 DD of the optic nerve and/or fovea, who received primary treatment with protons between 1975 and 2016 at Massachusetts Eye and Ear/Massachusetts General Hospital. METHODS: The rates of outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between the radiation dose groups were tested using the log-rank test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local tumor recurrence, melanoma-related mortality, and visual acuity preservation (≥ 20/200, ≥ 20/40). RESULTS: Local tumor recurrence was observed in 1.8% of the 50 Gy group and 1.5% of the 70 Gy group. The median time to recurrence was 30.7 months for patients treated with 50 Gy and 32.0 months for those treated with 70 Gy (P = 0.28). Five-year rates of vision retention (≥20/40, ≥ 20/200) were 19.4% and 49.3% for patients treated with 50 Gy and 16.4% and 40.7% in those treated with 70 Gy. Ten-year rates of melanoma-related mortality were 8.4% in the 50 Gy group and 8.9% in the 70 Gy group (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable rates of local control are achieved treating small-medium tumors near the optic nerve and/or fovea with 50 Gy or 70 Gy proton therapy, supporting the use of the lower dose in patients with these tumor characteristics.

Comparison of 3D Conformal Proton Therapy, Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy, and Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

Background: External beam radiation therapy (RT) for retroperitoneal sarcoma often requires treatment of large target volumes close to critical normal tissues. Radiation may be limited by adjacent organs at risk (OAR). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy has been shown to improve target coverage and reduce doses to OAR. Objectives: To compare target coverage and dose to OAR with 3D conformal proton therapy (3D CPT), intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMXT). Methods: We performed a comparative study of treatment plans with 3D CPT, IMPT, and IMXT for ten patients with retroperitoneal sarcomas. RT was delivered to 50.4 Gy to the clinical target volume (CTV), the structures considered at risk for microscopic disease. Results: CTVs ranged from 74 to 357 cc (mean 188 cc). Dose conformity was improved with IMPT, while 3D CPT provided better dose homogeneity. Mean dose to the liver, small bowel, and stomach was reduced with IMPT compared with 3D CPT or IMXT. Conclusions: IMPT, 3D CPT, and IMXT provide excellent target coverage for retroperitoneal sarcomas. OAR dose is lower with IMPT and 3D CPT, and IMPT achieves the closest conformity. These techniques offer the opportunity for further dose escalation to areas with positive margins.

Proton beam irradiation of uveal melanoma involving the iris, ciliary body and anterior choroid without surgical localisation (light field).

AIMS: To assess treatment outcomes after proton beam irradiation (PBI) without surgical localisation of uveal melanomas involving the iris, ciliary body and anterior choroid. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 125 patients evaluated at Massachusetts Eye and Ear and treated with PBI using a light field set-up without localisation surgery between November 1975 and April 2017. The tumours were characterised as follows: iris (n=18, 14.4%), ciliary body (n=12, 9.6%), iridociliary (n=58, 46.4%), ciliochoroidal (n=24, 19.2%) and iridociliochoroidal (n=13, 10.4%). The tumours were measured by transillumination and ultrasonography before treatment. Tumours with posterior margin located less than two disc diameters from the ora serrata were treated using the light field technique. Patient outcomes after PBI were evaluated. RESULTS: Most patients had good vision at the time of tumour diagnosis (69.6% had baseline visual acuity (VA) of ≥20/40). Median VA at last follow-up (median follow-up: 72.1 months) was 20/63. Recurrences occurred in 12 patients (9.6%) at a median time of 4.0 years post-treatment. Recurrences were treated by repeat PBI (n=5) or enucleation (n=7). Secondary enucleation was performed in 18 patients (14.4%), and 61.1% of these were due to complications. Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) developed in 21 patients (16.8%). Of seven patients who developed NVG after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapies became available, five were treated with intravitreal Avastin injections (23.8% of patients with NVG). Of 69 patients diagnosed with cataract after treatment, 51 (73.9%) were characterised as radiation-related. Death from metastatic uveal melanoma occurred in 20.8% of the cohort, with a median follow-up of 10.1 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with PBI using a light field set-up technique experience good outcomes after irradiation. Eye preservation and retention of good VA are seen in the majority of cases, and tumour recurrence is low.

Characterization of an Iodinated Rectal Spacer for Prostate Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Conventional rectal spacers (nonI-SPs) are low-contrast on computed tomography (CT), often necessitating magnetic resonance imaging for accurate delineation. A new formulation of spacers (I-SPs) incorporates iodine to improve radiopacity and CT visualization. We characterized placement, stability, and plan quality of I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with intact prostate cancer (n = 50) treated with I-SPs and photons were compared to randomly selected patients (n = 50) with nonI-SPs (photon or proton therapy). The I-SP was contoured on the planning CT and cone beam CTs at 3 timepoints: first, middle, and final treatment (n = 200 scans). I-SPs Hounsfield units (HU), volume, surface area (SA), centroid position relative to prostate centroid, and distance between prostate/rectum centroids were compared on the planning CTs between each cohort. I-SP changes were evaluated on cone beam CTs over courses of treatment. Dosimetric evaluations of plan quality and robustness were performed. I-SP was tested in a phantom to characterize its relative linear stopping power for protons. RESULTS: I-SPs yielded a distinct visible contrast on planning CTs compared to nonI-SPs (HU 138 vs 12, P < .001), allowing delineation on CT alone. The delineated volume and SA of I-SPs were smaller than nonI-SPs (volume 8.9 vs 10.6 mL, P < .001; SA 28 vs 35 cm2, P < .001), yet relative spacer position and prostate-rectal separation were similar (P = .79). No significant change in HU, volume, SA, or relative position of the I-SPs hydrogel occurred over courses of treatment (all P > .1). Dosimetric analysis concluded there were no significant changes in plan quality or robustness for I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs. The I-SP relative linear stopping power was 1.018, necessitating HU override for proton planning. CONCLUSIONS: I-SPs provide a manifest CT contrast, allowing for delineation on planning CT alone with no magnetic resonance imaging necessary. I-SPs radiopacity, size, and relative position remained stable over courses of treatment from 28 to 44 fractions. No changes in plan quality or robustness were seen comparing I-SPs and nonI-SPs.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of interfractional anatomical variations on prostate proton therapy using daily in-room CT images.

PURPOSE: To quantify interfractional anatomical variations and their dosimetric impact during the course of fractionated proton therapy (PT) of prostate cancer and to assess the robustness of the current treatment planning techniques. METHODS: Simulation and daily in-room CT scans from ten prostate carcinoma patients were analyzed. PT treatment plans (78 Gy in 39 fractions of 2 Gy) were created on the simulation CT, delivering 25 fractions to PTV1 (expanded from prostate and seminal vesicles), followed by 14 boost fractions to PTV2 (expanded from prostate). Plans were subsequently applied to daily CT, with beams aligned to the prostate center in the sagittal plane. For five patients having a sufficiently large daily imaging volume, structure contours were manually drawn, and plans were evaluated for all CT sets. For the other five patients, the plans were evaluated for six selected fractions. The daily CT was matched to the simulation CT through deformable registration. The registration accuracy was validated for each fraction, and the three patients with a large number of accurately registered fractions were used for dose accumulation. RESULTS: In individual fractions, the coverage of the prostate, seminal vesicles, and PTV1 was generally maintained at the corresponding prescription dose. For PTV2, the volume covered by the fractional prescription dose of 2 Gy (i.e., V2) was, on average, reduced by less than 3% compared to the simulation plan. Among the 225 (39 x 5 + 6 x 5) fractions examined, 15 showed a V2 reduction larger than 5%, of which ten were caused by a large variation in rectal gas, and five were due to a prostate shift in the craniocaudal direction. The fractional dose to the anterior rectal wall was found to increase for one patient who had large rectal gas volume in 25 of the 39 fractions, and another who experienced significant prostate volume reduction during the treatment. The fractional bladder dose generally increased with decreasing fullness. In the total accumulated dose for the three patients after excluding a few fractions with inaccurate registration due to a large amount of rectal gas (a condition inconsistent with RTOG protocol), 98.5%, 96.6%, and 98.2% of the PTV2 received the prescription dose of 78 Gy. The V75 and V70 of the anterior rectal wall and bladder both remained within tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that the PT planning techniques and dose constraints used at our institution ensure that target coverage to the prescription dose is maintained in the presence of interfractional anatomical variations. Dose coverage in individual fractions can be compromised, and normal tissue dose increased, due to deviations in the bladder and rectal volume compared to the simulation plans or progressive changes in the prostate volume during the treatment. Deviations from the plan can be reduced with efforts aimed at maintaining consistent daily patient anatomy.

Monte Carlo calculation of imaging doses from diagnostic multidetector CT and kilovoltage cone-beam CT as part of prostate cancer treatment plans.

PURPOSE: To calculate imaging doses to the rectum, bladder, and femoral heads as part of a prostate cancer treatment plans, assuming an image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) procedure involving either the multidetector CT (MDCT) or kilovoltage cone-beam CT (kV CBCT). METHODS: This study considered an IGRT treatment plan for a prostate carcinoma patient involving 50.4 Gy from 28 initial fractions and a boost of 28.8 Gy from 16 fractions. A total of 45 CT imaging procedures, each involving a MDCT or a kV CBCT scan procedure, were carefully modeled using the MCNPX code version 2.5.0. The MDCT scanner model is based on the GE LightSpeed 16-MDCT scanner and the kV CBCT scanner model is based on the Varian On-Board Imager using parameters reported by the CT manufacturers and literatures. A patient-specific treatment planning CT data set was used to construct the phantom for the dose calculation. The target, organs-at-risk (OARs), and background voxels in the CT data set were categorized into six tissue types according to CT numbers for Monte Carlo calculations. RESULTS: For a total of 45 imaging procedures, it was found that the rectum received 78.4 and 76.7 cGy from MDCT and kV CBCT, respectively. The bladder received slightly greater doses of 82.4 and 77.9 cGy, while the femoral heads received much higher doses of 182.3 and 141.3 cGy from MDCT and kV CBCT, respectively. To investigate the impact of these imaging doses on treatment planning, OAR doses from MDCT or kV CBCT imaging procedures were added to the corresponding dose matrix reported by the original treatment plans to construct dose volume histograms. It was found that after the imaging dose is added, the rectum volumes irradiated to 75 and 70 Gy increased from 13.9% and 21.2%, respectively, in the original plan to 14.8% and 21.8%. The bladder volumes receiving 80 Gy increased to 4.6% from 4.1% in the original plan and the volume receiving 75 Gy increased to 7.9% from 7.5%. All values remained within the tolerance levels: V70<25%, V75 <15% for rectum and V75 < 25%, V80 < 15% for bladder. The irradiation of femoral heads was also acceptable with no volume receiving >45 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: IGRT procedures can irradiate the OARs to an imaging dose level that is great enough to require careful evaluation and perhaps even adjustment of original treatment planning in order to still satisfy the dose constraints. This study only considered one patient CT because the CT x rays cover a relatively larger volume of the body and the dose distribution is considerably more uniform than those associated with the therapeutic beams. As a result, the dose to an organ from CT imaging doses does not vary much from one patient to the other for the same CT settings. One factor that would potentially affect such CT dose level is the size of the patient body. More studies are needed to develop accurate and convenient methods of accounting for the imaging doses as part of treatment planning.

Breathing interplay effects during proton beam scanning: simulation and statistical analysis.

Treatment delivery with active beam scanning in proton radiation therapy introduces the problem of interplay effects when pencil beam motion occurs on a similar time scale as intra-fractional tumor motion. In situations where fractionation may not provide enough repetition to blur the effects of interplay, repeated delivery or 'repainting' of each field several times within a fraction has been suggested. The purpose of this work was to investigate the effectiveness of different repainting strategies in proton beam scanning. To assess the dosimetric impact of interplay effects, we performed a series of simulations considering the following parameters: tumor motion amplitude, breathing period, asymmetry in the motion trajectory for the target and time required to change the beam energy for the delivery system. Several repainting strategies were compared in terms of potential vulnerability to a dose delivery error. Breathing motion perpendicular to the beam direction (representing superior-inferior type tumor motion in patients) was considered and modeled as an asymmetric sine function with a peak-to-peak amplitude of between 10 and 30 mm. The results show that motion effects cause a narrowing of the high-dose profile and widening of the penumbra. The 90% isodose area was reduced significantly when considering a large motion amplitude of 3 cm. The broadening of the penumbra appears to depend only on the amplitude of tumor motion (assuming harmonic motion). The delivered dose exhibits a shift of 10-15% of the tumor amplitude (or 1-5 mm) in the caudal direction due to breathing asymmetry observed for both sin(4)(x) and sin(6)(x) motion. Of the five repainting techniques studied, so-called 'breath sampling' turned out to be most effective in reducing dose errors with a minimal increase in treatment time. In this method, each energy level is repainted at several evenly spaced times within one breathing period. To keep dose delivery errors below 5% while minimizing treatment time, it is recommended that breath sampling repainting be employed using 5-10 paintings per field for an assumed tumor volume of 8.5 x 8.5 x 10 cm(3). For smaller tumor volumes more repaintings will be required, while for larger volumes five repaintings should be sufficient to achieve the required dose accuracy.

Experimental evaluation of a robust optimization method for IMRT of moving targets.

Internal organ motion during radiation therapy, if not considered appropriately in the planning process, has been shown to reduce target coverage and increase the dose to healthy tissues. Standard planning approaches, which use safety margins to handle intrafractional movement of the tumor, are typically designed based on the maximum amplitude of motion, and are often overly conservative. Comparable coverage and reduced dose to healthy organs appear achievable with robust motion-adaptive treatment planning, which considers the expected probability distribution of the average target position and the uncertainty of its realization during treatment delivery. A dosimetric test of a robust optimization method for IMRT was performed, using patient breathing data. External marker motion data acquired from respiratory-gated radiotherapy patients were used to build and test the framework for robust optimization. The motion trajectories recorded during radiation treatment itself are not strictly necessary to generate the initial version of a robust treatment plan, but can be used to adapt the plan during the course of treatment. Single-field IMRT plans were optimized to deliver a uniform dose to a rectangular area. During delivery on a linear accelerator, a computer-driven motion phantom reproduced the patients' breathing patterns and a two-dimensional ionization detector array measured the dose delivered. The dose distributions from robust-optimized plans were compared to those from standard plans, which used a margin expansion. Dosimetric tests confirmed the improved sparing of the non-target area with robust planning, which was achieved without compromising the target coverage. The maximum dose in robust plans did not exceed 110% of the prescription, while the minimum target doses were comparable in standard and robust plans. In test courses, optimized for a simplified target geometry, and delivered to a phantom that moved in one dimension with an average amplitude of 17 mm, the robust treatment design produced a reduction of more than 12% of the integral dose to non-target areas, compared to the standard plan using 10 mm margin expansion.

Proton radiotherapy for childhood ependymoma: initial clinical outcomes and dose comparisons.

PURPOSE: To report preliminary clinical outcomes for pediatric patients treated with proton beam radiation for intracranial ependymoma and compare the dose distributions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with photons (IMRT), three-dimensional conformal proton radiation, and intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT) for representative patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All children with intracranial ependymoma confined to the supratentorial or infratentorial brain treated at the Francis H. Burr Proton Facility and Harvard Cyclotron between November 2000 and March 2006 were included in this study. Seventeen patients were treated with protons. Proton, IMRT, and IMPT plans were generated with similar clinical constraints for representative infratentorial and supratentorial ependymoma cases. Tumor and normal tissue dose-volume histograms were calculated and compared. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 26 months from the start date of radiation therapy, local control, progression-free survival, and overall survival rates were 86%, 80%, and 89%, respectively. Subtotal resection was significantly associated with decreased local control (p = 0.016). Similar tumor volume coverage was achieved with IMPT, proton therapy, and IMRT. Substantial normal tissue sparing was seen with proton therapy compared with IMRT. Use of IMPT will allow for additional sparing of some critical structures. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary disease control with proton therapy compares favorably with the literature. Dosimetric comparisons show the advantage of proton radiation compared with IMRT in the treatment of ependymoma. Further sparing of normal structures appears possible with IMPT. Superior dose distributions were accomplished with fewer beam angles with the use of protons and IMPT.

Should positive phase III clinical trial data be required before proton beam therapy is more widely adopted? No.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the rationale for the proposals that prior to a wider use of proton radiation therapy there must be supporting data from phase III clinical trials. That is, would less dose to normal tissues be an advantage to the patient? METHODS: Assess the basis for the assertion that proton dose distributions are superior to those of photons for most situations. Consider the requirements for determining the risks of normal tissue injury, acute and remote, in the examination of the data from a trial. Analyze the probable cost differential between high technology photon and proton therapy. Evaluate the rationale for phase III clinical trials of proton vs photon radiation therapy when the only difference in dose delivered is a difference in distribution of low LET radiation. RESULTS: The distributions of biological effective dose by protons are superior to those by X-rays for most clinical situations, viz. for a defined dose and dose distribution to the target by protons there is a lower dose to non-target tissues. This superiority is due to these physical properties of protons: (1) protons have a finite range and that range is exclusively dependent on the initial energy and the density distribution along the beam path; (2) the Bragg peak; (3) the proton energy distribution may be designed to provide a spread out Bragg peak that yields a uniform dose across the target volume and virtually zero dose deep to the target. Importantly, proton and photon treatment plans can employ beams in the same number and directions (coplanar, non-co-planar), utilize intensity modulation and employ 4D image guided techniques. Thus, the only difference between protons and photons is the distribution of biologically effective dose and this difference can be readily evaluated and quantified. Additionally, this dose distribution advantage should increase the tolerance of certain chemotherapeutic agents and thus permit higher drug doses. The cost of service (not developmental) proton therapy performed in 3-5 gantry centers operating 14-16 h/day and 6 days/week is likely to be equal to or less than twice that of high technology X-ray therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Proton therapy provides superior distributions of low LET radiation dose relative to that by photon therapy for treatment of a large proportion of tumor/normal tissue situations. Our assessment is that there is no medical rationale for clinical trials of protons as they deliver lower biologically effective doses to non-target tissue than do photons for a specified dose and dose distribution to the target. Based on present knowledge, there will be some gain for patients treated by proton beam techniques. This is so even though quantitation of the clinical gain is less secure than the quantitation of reduction in physical dose. Were proton therapy less expensive than X-ray therapy, there would be no interest in conducting phase III trails. The talent, effort and funds required to conduct phase III clinical trials of protons vs photons would surely be more productive in the advancement of radiation oncology if employed to investigate real problems, e.g. the most effective total dose, dose fractionation, definition of CTV and GTV, means for reduction of PTV and the gains and risks of combined modality therapy.

Tumor trailing strategy for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of moving targets.

Internal organ motion during the course of radiation therapy of cancer affects the distribution of the delivered dose and, generally, reduces its conformality to the targeted volume. Previously proposed approaches aimed at mitigating the effect of internal motion in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) included expansion of the target margins, motion-correlated delivery (e.g., respiratory gating, tumor tracking), and adaptive treatment plan optimization employing a probabilistic description of motion. We describe and test the tumor trailing strategy, which utilizes the synergy of motion-adaptive treatment planning and delivery methods. We regard the (rigid) target motion as a superposition of a relatively fast cyclic component (e.g., respiratory) and slow aperiodic trends (e.g., the drift of exhalation baseline). In the trailing approach, these two components of motion are decoupled and dealt with separately. Real-time motion monitoring is employed to identify the "slow" shifts, which are then corrected by applying setup adjustments. The delivery does not track the target position exactly, but trails the systematic trend due to the delay between the time a shift occurs, is reliably detected, and, subsequently, corrected. The "fast" cyclic motion is accounted for with a robust motion-adaptive treatment planning, which allows for variability in motion parameters (e.g., mean and extrema of the tidal volume, variable period of respiration, and expiratory duration). Motion-surrogate data from gated IMRT treatments were used to provide probability distribution data for motion-adaptive planning and to test algorithms that identified systematic trends in the character of motion. Sample IMRT fields were delivered on a clinical linear accelerator to a programmable moving phantom. Dose measurements were performed with a commercial two-dimensional ion-chamber array. The results indicate that by reducing intrafractional motion variability, the trailing strategy enhances relevance and applicability of motion-adaptive planning methods, and improves conformality of the delivered dose to the target in the presence of irregular motion. Trailing strategy can be applied to respiratory-gated treatments, in which the correction for the slow motion can increase the duty cycle, while robust probabilistic planning can improve management of the residual motion within the gate window. Similarly, trailing may improve the dose conformality in treatment of patients who exhibit detectable target motion of low amplitude, which is considered insufficient to provide a clinical indication for the use of respiratory-gated treatment (e.g., peak-to-peak motion of less than 10 mm). The mechanical limitations of implementing tumor trailing are less rigorous than those of real-time tracking, and the same technology could be used for both.

Proton-beam vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Which is best for treating prostate cancer?

There is a growing interest in the use of proton therapy for the treatment of many cancers. With its unique dose-distribution properties, proton therapy has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of prostate radiation by allowing for an increase in dose without a substantial increase in side effects. While much evidence supports this notion in the context of many oncologic sites, only limited clinical data have compared protons to photons in prostate cancer. Therefore, the increasing enthusiasm for the use of protons in prostate cancer has aroused considerable concern. Some have questioned its ability to limit morbidity, and others have questioned its value relative to the cost. In addition, theoretical concerns have been raised about a potential additional risk for secondary malignancies. In this article, we review the current status of the evidence supporting the use of protons in prostate cancer and discuss the active controversies that surround this modality.

Impact of interfractional motion on hypofractionated pencil beam scanning proton therapy and VMAT delivery for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer is gaining clinical acceptance given its potential increase in therapeutic ratio and evidence for noninferiority and lack of added late toxicities compared to conventional fractionation. However, concerns have been raised that smaller number of fractions might lead to larger dosimetric influence by interfractional motion. We aim to compare the effect of these variations on hypofractionated pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Weekly CT images were acquired for 6 patients participating in a randomized clinical trial. PBS plans featuring bilateral (BL) and a combination of lateral and anterior-oblique beams (AOL), and VMAT plans were created. All patients were treated to a conventional 79.2 Gy total dose in 44 fractions. For this study, hypofractionated dose to the prostate gland was 51.6 Gy in 12 fractions or 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions, and 32.8, and 23.1 Gy to proximal seminal vesicles, respectively. Patients were simulated with endorectal balloons to aid gland immobilization. Three fiducial markers were implanted for setup guidance. All plans were recomputed on the weekly CT images after aligning with the simulation CT. The entire set of 9 CT images was used for dose recalculation for 12-fraction and only 5 used for the 5-fraction case. Adaptive range adjustments were applied to anterior-oblique beams assuming clinical availability of in vivo range verification. Fractional doses were summed using deformable dose accumulation to approximate the delivered dose. Biologically equivalent dose to 2 Gy(EQD2) was calculated assuming α/ß of 1.5 Gy for prostate and 3 Gy for bladder and rectum. RESULTS: The median delivered prostate D98 was 0.13/0.14/0.13 Gy(EQD2) smaller than planned for PBS-BL, 0.13/0.27/0.17 Gy(EQD2) for PBS-AOL and 0.59/0.66/0.59 Gy(EQD2) for VMAT, for 44/12/5 fractions, respectively. The largest D98 reduction was 1.5 and 3.5 Gy(EQD2) for CTV1 and CTV2, respectively. Target dose degradation was comparable for all fractionation schemes within each modality. The maximum increase in rectum D2 was 0.98 Gy(EQD2) for a 5-fraction PBS case. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of PBS and VMAT were comparable for all patients for the studied fractionations. The delivered target dose generally remained within clinical tolerance and the deviations were relatively minor for both fractionation schemes. The delivered OAR dose stayed in compliance with the RTOG hypofractionation constraints for all cases.

Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison.

PURPOSE: To compare intensity-modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal proton therapy (3D-CPT) for early-stage prostate cancer, and explore the potential utility of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients were planned with both 3D-CPT (two parallel-opposed lateral fields) and IMRT (seven equally spaced coplanar fields). Prescribed dose was 79.2 Gy (or cobalt Gray-equivalent, [CGE] for protons) to the prostate gland. Dose-volume histograms, dose conformity, and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) were compared. Additionally, plans were optimized for 3D-CPT with nonstandard beam configuration, and for IMPT assuming delivery with beam scanning. RESULTS: At least 98% of the planning target volume received the prescription dose. IMRT plans yielded better dose conformity to the target, whereas proton plans achieved higher dose homogeneity and better sparing of rectum and bladder in the range below 30 Gy/CGE. Bladder volumes receiving more than 70 Gy/CGE (V70) were reduced, on average, by 34% with IMRT vs. 3D-CPT, whereas rectal V70 were equivalent. EUD from 3D-CPT and IMRT plans were indistinguishable within uncertainties for both bladder and rectum. With the use of small-angle lateral-oblique fields in 3D-CPT and IMPT, the rectal V70 was reduced by up to 35% compared with the standard lateral configuration, whereas the bladder V70 increased by less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: In the range higher than 60 Gy/CGE, IMRT achieved significantly better sparing of the bladder, whereas rectal sparing was similar with 3D-CPT and IMRT. Dose to healthy tissues in the range lower than 50% of the target prescription was substantially lower with proton therapy.