Daily Adaptive Proton Therapy: Is it Appropriate to Use Analytical Dose Calculations for Plan Adaption?


Journal

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
ISSN: 1879-355X
Titre abrégé: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7603616

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 07 2020
Historique:
received: 22 12 2019
revised: 26 02 2020
accepted: 27 03 2020
pubmed: 11 4 2020
medline: 16 2 2021
entrez: 11 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The accuracy of analytical dose calculations (ADC) and dose uncertainties resulting from anatomical changes are both limiting factors in proton therapy. For the latter, rapid plan adaption is necessary; for the former, Monte Carlo (MC) approaches are increasingly recommended. These, however, are inherently slower than analytical approaches, potentially limiting the ability to rapidly adapt plans. Here, we compare the clinical relevance of uncertainties resulting from both. Five patients with non-small cell lung cancer with up to 9 computed tomography (CT) scans acquired during treatment and five paranasal (head and neck) patients with 10 simulated anatomical changes (sinus filling) were analyzed. On the initial planning CT scans, treatment plans were optimized and calculated using an ADC and then recalculated with MC. Additionally, all plans were recalculated (non-adapted) and reoptimized (adapted) on each repeated CT using the same ADC as for the initial plan, and the resulting dose distributions were compared. When comparing analytical and MC calculations in the initial treatment plan and averaged over all patients, 94.2% (non-small cell lung cancer) and 98.5% (head and neck) of voxels had differences <±5%, and only minor differences in clinical target volume (CTV) V95 (average <2%) were observed. In contrast, when recalculating nominal plans on the repeat (anatomically changed) CT scans, CTV V95 degraded by up to 34%. Plan adaption, however, restored CTV V95 differences between adapted and nominal plans to <0.5%. Adapted organ-at-risk doses remained the same or improved. Dose degradations caused by anatomic changes are substantially larger than uncertainties introduced by the use of analytical instead of MC dose calculations. Thus, if the use of analytical calculations can enable more rapid and efficient plan adaption than MC approaches, they can and should be used for plan adaption for these patient groups.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32275996
pii: S0360-3016(20)30977-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.036
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

747-755

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Lena Nenoff (L)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: lena.nenoff@psi.ch.

Michael Matter (M)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Agnes Geetanjali Jarhall (AG)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland; Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Carla Winterhalter (C)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Jenny Gorgisyan (J)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland; Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Mirjana Josipovic (M)

Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Gitte F Persson (GF)

Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Per Munck Af Rosenschold (P)

Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Damien Charles Weber (DC)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Antony John Lomax (AJ)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Francesca Albertini (F)

Paul Scherrer Institute, Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH