Background: Proton arc technology has recently shown dosimetric gains for various treatment indications. The increased number of beams and energy layers (ELs) in proton arc plans, increases the degrees of freedom in plan optimization and thereby flexibility to spare dose in organs at risk (OARs). A relationship exists between dosimetric plan quality, delivery efficiency, the number of ELs -and beams in a proton arc plan. Purpose: This work aims to investigate the effect of the number of beams and ELs in a proton arc plan, on toxicity and delivery time for oropharyngeal cancer patients (OPC) selected for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) based on the Dutch model-based approach. Methods: The EL reduction algorithm iteratively selects ELs from beams equidistantly spaced over a 360 • arc. The beams in the final plan may contain multiple ELs, making them suited for static delivery on the studied treatment machine. The produced plans can therefore be called "step and shoot" proton arc plans. The number of beams and ELs were varied to determine the relationship with the planning cost function value, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and delivery time. Proton arc plans with robust target coverage and optimal energy layer reduction (ELR) settings to reduce NTCP, were generated for 10 OPC patients. Proton arc plans were compared to clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and IMPT plans in terms of integral dose, OAR dose, NTCP for xerostomia and dysphagia and delivery time. Furthermore, dose-weighted average linear energy transfer (LET d ) distributions were compared between the IMPT and proton arc plans. A dry run delivery of a plan containing 20 beams and 360 ELs was performed to evaluate delivery time and accuracy. Results: We found 360 ELs distributed over 30 beams generated proton arc plans with near minimal expected plan toxicity. Relative to corresponding IMPT and VMAT plans, an average reduction of 21 ± 3% and 58 ± 10% in integral dose was observed. D mean was reduced most in the pharyngeal constrictor muscle (PCM) medius structure, with on average 9.0 ± 4.2 Gy(RBE) (p = 0.0002) compared to the clinical IMPT plans. The average NTCP for grade≥2 and grade≥3 xerostomia at 6 months after treatment significantly decreased with 4.7 ± 1.8% (p = 0.002) and 1.7 ± 0.8% (p = 0.002), respectively, while the This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Objective: Proton pencil-beam scanning arcs (PBS arcs) have gained much attention during the past years, due to its potential for increased clinical benefit compared to conventional proton therapy. Previous studies on PBS arcs have primarily been focused on plan quality, and lately efforts have been made to reduce the delivery time. However, the methods presented so far suffer from slow optimization processes. Approach: We present a new method for fast robust optimization of PBS arc plans. The new method assigns a single energy layer per discretized direction prior to spot weight optimization and reduces the number of initial spots considerably compared to conventional methods. We used the new method for three prostate cancer patients with a prescribed dose to the CTV of 77 GyRBE in 35 fractions. For each of the patients, four plans were created: 2-beam IMPT (2IMPT), 1-beam PBS arc (1Arc), 1-beam PBS arc without focus on reducing upward energy jumps (1Arc_unseq) and two-beam PBS arc (2Arc). Main results: All PBS arc plans show a reduced integral dose compared to their respective 2IMPT plans. In the nominal case, the average CTV D98 and D2 metrics over the three patients were best for the 2Arc, followed by 2IMPT (D98/D2: 7523/7986 cGyRBE (2IMPT), 7478/7984 cGy (1Arc), 7486/7951 cGy (1Arc_unseq), 7531/7951 cGyRBE (2Arc)). The average robust target coverage in terms of V95 of the voxelwise minimum dose distribution (evaluated over 42 scenarios) was: 98.0% (2IMPT), 88.6% (1Arc), 92.5% (1Arc_unseq), 97.3% (2Arc). The optimization time, including spot selection and spot dose computation, is longest for the 2Arc plan, but is below 6 minutes for all patients. The maximum estimated delivery time for all types of arc plans is just above 5 minutes. Significance: The ability for efficient treatment planning constitutes an important step towards clinical introduction of proton PBS arcs.

Purpose To reduce the exposed area by the multileaf collimator between lesions for single‐isocenter dynamic conformal arc (DCA) therapy for stereotactic radiosurgery treatment of multiple brain metastases by optimizing the collimator angle orientation. In particular, this is achieved by the avoidance of collimator angles where multiple lesions are exposed by the same leaf pairs. Methods An algorithm that estimates the quality of an arc by considering the target projections onto the plane perpendicular to the central axis of the arc beam. A penalty proportional to the exposure of healthy tissue between metastases is assigned to each control point and each feasible collimator angle from a discretized set of angles. The algorithm can generate two outputs: the fixed optimal collimator angle over all the control points, or the optimal collimator angle trajectory through all the control points considering the rotation speed of the collimator. The first output is based on explicit enumeration of all collimator angles, and the second one generates the optimal trajectory using dynamic programming to find the globally optimal solution with respect to the objective function cost. The algorithm was validated on eight clinical cases having a different number of cranial metastases: two metastases (n = 1), three metastases (n = 5), four metastases (n = 1), and five metastases (n = 1). Plans with optimized fixed collimator angles and plans with optimized dynamic collimator trajectories were compared between each other. Results When comparing optimal dynamic trajectories to fixed optimal collimator trajectories, the resulting plans demonstrated a total reduction of the exposed area between lesions over the entire beam configuration from 21.7% up to 71.3%; similarly, beam‐wise reductions ranging from 5.83% to over 90% have been registered. Conclusion Collimator angle optimization has the potential to reduce the magnitude of the exposed area between lesions in an efficient way for non‐isocentric treatments where multiple lesions are treated simultaneously. Dynamic trajectories are capable of limiting the island blocking problem more than optimal fixed trajectories by exploiting the extra degree of freedom of rotating the multileaf collimator. The algorithm can also lead to time saving during the treatment planning process.