Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities.
discrete arc
pencil-beam scanning
proton arc
proton planning
static arc
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
27
04
2023
accepted:
19
06
2023
medline:
11
9
2023
pubmed:
24
7
2023
entrez:
24
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times. To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course. For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia. The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2). Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course.
METHODS
METHODS
For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.
Substances chimiques
Protons
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5723-5733Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Sanchez-Parcerisa D, Kirk M, Fager M, et al. Range optimization for mono- and bi-energetic proton modulated arc therapy with pencil beam scanning. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(21):N565-N574. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/21/N565
Ding X, Li X, Zhang JM, Kabolizadeh P, Stevens C, Yan D. Spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy: the first Robust and delivery-efficient spot-scanning proton arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2016;96(5):1107-1116. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.049
Gu W, Ruan D, Lyu Q, Zou W, Dong L, Sheng K. A novel energy layer optimization framework for spot-scanning proton arc therapy. Med Phys. 2020;47(5):2072-2084. doi:10.1002/mp.14083
Liu G, Li X, Zhao L, et al. A novel energy sequence optimization algorithm for efficient spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) treatment delivery. Acta Oncol. 2020;59(10):1178-1185. doi:10.1080/0284186X.2020.1765415
Engwall E, Battinelli C, Wase V, et al. Fast robust optimization of proton PBS arc therapy plans using early energy layer selection and spot assignment. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(6):065010. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac55a6
Wuyckens S, Saint-Guillain M, Janssens G, et al. Treatment planning in arc proton therapy: comparison of several optimization problem statements and their corresponding solvers. Comput Biol Med. 2022;148:105609. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105609
Li X, Liu G, Janssens G, et al. The first prototype of spot-scanning proton arc treatment delivery. Radiother Oncol. 2019;137:130-136. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.032
Battinelli C. Proton Arc Therapy Optimization. KTH, Optimization and Systems Theory. Master's Thesis; 2019.
de Jong BA, Battinelli C, Free J, et al. Spot scanning proton arc therapy reduces toxicity in oropharyngeal cancer patients. Med Phys. 2022; 50(3):1305-1317. doi:10.1002/mp.16098. Published online October 2022.
de Jong BA, Korevaar EW, Maring A, et al. Proton arc therapy increases the benefit of proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients in the model based clinic. Radiother Oncol. 2023;184:109670. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109670
Ding X, Li X, Qin A, et al. Have we reached proton beam therapy dosimetric limitations? - A novel robust, delivery-efficient and continuous spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy is to improve the dosimetric outcome in treating prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(3):435-437. doi:10.1080/0284186X.2017.1358463
Li X, Kabolizadeh P, Yan D, et al. Improve dosimetric outcome in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer treatment using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):35. doi:10.1186/s13014-018-0981-6
Chang S, Liu G, Zhao L, et al. Feasibility study: spot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPArc) for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15(1):232. doi:10.1186/s13014-020-01676-3
Ding X, Zhou J, Li X, et al. Improving dosimetric outcome for hippocampus and cochlea sparing whole brain radiotherapy using spot-scanning proton arc therapy. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(4):483-490. doi:10.1080/0284186X.2018.1555374
Liu G, Li X, Qin A, et al. Improve the dosimetric outcome in bilateral head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy: a feasibility study. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15(1):21. doi:10.1186/s13014-020-1476-9
Liu G, Li X, Qin A, et al. Is proton beam therapy ready for single fraction spine SBRS? - a feasibility study to use spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy to improve the robustness and dosimetric plan quality. Acta Oncol. 2021;60(5):653-657. doi:10.1080/0284186X.2021.1892183
Liu G, Zhao L, Qin A, et al. Lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy: a feasibility study. Front Oncol. 2021;11:664455. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.664455
Bertolet A, Carabe A. Proton monoenergetic arc therapy (PMAT) to enhance LETd within the target. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(16):165006. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab9455
Li X, Ding X, Zheng W, et al. Linear energy transfer incorporated spot-scanning proton arc therapy optimization: a feasibility study. Front Oncol. 2021;11:698537. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.698537
Glimelius L, Marthin O, Wase V, et al. Robust LET optimization of proton arcs can substantially reduce high LET in critical structures. ESTRO conference contribution, 2023.
Carabe A, Karagounis IV, Huynh K, et al. Radiobiological effectiveness difference of proton arc beams versus conventional proton and photon beams. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(16):165002. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab9370
Marthin O, Wase V, Bokrantz R, et al. Robustness in proton arc treatments for head and neck cancer patients: impact of gantry angle spacing and number of revolutions. PTCOG conference contribution, 2022.
de Jong BA, Zhao L, Wase V, et al. Comparison of static and dynamic proton arc treatment planning algorithms in oropharyngeal cancer. ESTRO conference contribution, 2023.
Scandurra D, Meijer TWH, Free J, et al. Evaluation of robustly optimised intensity modulated proton therapy for nasopharyngealcarcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2022;168:221-228. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.01.043
Lomax T. Intensity modulated proton therapy. In: DeLaney TF, Kooy HM, eds. Proton and Charged Particle Radiotherapy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
Pfeiler T, Bäumer C, Engwall E, Geismar D, Spaan B, Timmermann B. Experimental validation of a 4D dose calculation routine for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Z Für Med Phys. 2018;28(2):121-133. doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2017.07.005
Korevaar EW, Habraken SJM, Scandurra D, et al. Practical robustness evaluation in radiotherapy - a photon and proton-proof alternative to PTV-based plan evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2019;141:267-274. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2019.08.005
Langendijk JA, Hoogeman MS, Monshouwer R, Verheij M. Landelijk Indicatie Protocol Protonen Therapie (versie 2.2) HOOFD-HALSTU - MOREN; 2019. Accessed 29 March 2023. https://nvro.nl/publicaties/rapporten
Bortfeld T, Jokivarsi K, Goitein M, Kung J, Jiang SB. Effects of intra-fraction motion on IMRT dose delivery: statistical analysis and simulation. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47(13):2203-2220. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/47/13/302
Mein S, Tessonnier T, Kopp B, et al. Biological dose optimization for particle arc therapy using helium and carbon ions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;114(2):334-348. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.025
Mein S, Kopp B, Tessonnier T, et al. Spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) therapy: a proof of concept using single- and multi-ion strategies with helium, carbon, oxygen, and neon ions. Med Phys. 2022;49(9):6082-6097. doi:10.1002/mp.15800
Meijers A, Guterres Marmitt G, Ng Wei Siang K, et al. Feasibility of patient specific quality assurance for proton therapy based on independent dose calculation and predicted outcomes. Radiother Oncol. 2020;150:136-141. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2020.06.027
Smolders A, Hengeveld AC, Both S, et al. Inter- and intrafractional 4D dose accumulation for evaluating ΔNTCP robustness in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2023;182:109488. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109488
Fowler JF. The linear-quadratic formula and progress in fractionated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 1989;62(740):679-694. doi:10.1259/0007-1285-62-740-679
O'Connor D, Yu V, Nguyen D, Ruan D, Sheng K. Fraction-variant beam orientation optimization for non-coplanar IMRT. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(4):045015. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aaa94f