Pencil beam (PB) dose calculation is fast but inaccurate due to the approximations when dealing with inhomogeneities. Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is the most accurate method but it is time consuming. The aim of this study was to develop a deep learning model that can boost the accuracy of PB dose calculation to the level of MC dose by converting PB dose to MC dose for different tumor sites. The proposed model uses the PB dose and computed tomography image as inputs to generate the MC dose. We used 290 patients (90 head and neck, 93 liver, 75 prostate and 32 lung) to train, validate, and test the model. For each tumor site, we performed four numerical experiments to explore various combinations of training datasets. Training the model on data from all tumor sites together and using the dose distribution of each individual beam as input yielded the best performance for all four tumor sites. The average gamma passing rate (1 mm/1%) between the converted and the MC dose was 92.8%, 92.7%, 89.7% and 99.6% for head and neck, liver, lung, and prostate test patients, respectively. The average dose conversion time for a single field was less than 4 s. The trained model can be adapted to new datasets through transfer learning. Our deep learning-based approach can quickly boost the accuracy of PB dose to that of MC dose. The developed model can be added to the clinical workflow of proton treatment planning to improve dose calculation accuracy.

ObjectiveTo investigate the anatomic and dosimetric variations of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients based on weekly cone beam CT (CBCT).Materials and methodsTen NPC patients treated by VMAT with weekly CBCT for setup corrections were reviewed retrospectively. Deformed volumes of targets and organs at risk (OARs) in the CBCT were compared with those in the planning CT. Delivered doses were recalculated based on weekly CBCT and compared with the planned doses.ResultsNo significant volumetric changes on targets, brainstem, and spinal cord were observed. The average volumes of right and left parotid measured from the fifth CBCT were about 4.4 and 4.5 cm3 less than those from the first CBCT, respectively. There were no significant dose differences between average planned and delivered doses for targets, brainstem and spinal cord. For right parotid, the delivered mean dose was 10.5 cGy higher (p = 0.004) than the planned value per fraction, and the V26 and V32 increased by 7.5% (p = 0.002) and 7.4% (p = 0.01), respectively. For the left parotid, the D50 (dose to the 50% volume) was 8.8 cGy higher (p = 0.03) than the planned values per fraction, and the V26 increased by 8.8% (p = 0.002).ConclusionWeekly CBCTs were applied directly to study the continuous volume changes and resulting dosimetric variations of targets and OARs for NPC patients undergoing VMAT. Significant volumetric and dosimetric variations were observed for parotids. Replanning after 30 Gy will benefit the protection on parotids.

The increase of proton beam number might provide higher degrees of freedom in the optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy planning. In this study, we aimed to quantitatively explore the potential benefits of the increased beam number, including dose volume histogram (DVH), linear energy transfer volume histogram, and DVH bandwidth metrics. Twelve patients with lung cancer are retrospectively selected. Four plans were created based on internal target volume (ITV) robust optimization for each patient using the RayStation treatment planning system. Four plans were generated using different numbers (three, five, seven, and nine) of evenly separated coplanar beams. The three-beam plan was considered as the reference plan. Biologically equivalent doses were calculated using both constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and variable RBE models, respectively. To evaluate plan quality, DVH metrics in the target [ITV: D 2%, CI, HI] and organs-at-risk [Lung: V 5Gy[RBE], V 20Gy[RBE], V 30Gy[RBE]; Heart D 2%; Spinal cord D 2%] were calculated using both RBE models. To evaluate LET distributions, LET volume histogram metrics [ITV LETmean and LET2%; Lung LETmean and LET2%; Heart LET2%; Spinal cord LET2%] were quantified. To evaluate plan robustness, the metrics using DVH bandwidth [ITV: D 2%, D 99%; Lung: V 5Gy[RBE], V 20Gy[RBE], V 30Gy[RBE]; Heart D 2%; Spinal cord D 2%] were also reported. For plan quality, the increase of proton beam number resulted in fewer target hot spots, improved target dose conformity, improved target dose homogeneity, lower median-dose lung volume, and fewer hot spots in spinal cord. As to LET distributions, target mean LET increased significantly as the beam number increased to seven or more. Lung LET hot spots were significantly reduced with the increase of proton beams. With respect to plan robustness, the robustness of target dose coverage, target hot spots, and low-dose lung volume were improved, while the robustness of heart hot spots became worse as the beam number increased to nine. The robustness of cord hot spots became worse using five and seven beams compared to that using three beams. As the proton beam number increased, plan quality and LET distributions were comparable or significantly improved. The robustness of target dose coverage, target dose hot spots, and low-dose lung volume were significantly improved.

PurposeTo investigate the feasibility of constant dose rate volumetric modulated arc therapy (CDR-VMAT) in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients and to introduce rotational arc radiotherapy for linacs incapable of dose rate variation.Materials and methodsTwelve NPC patients with various stages treated previously using variable dose rate (VDR) VMAT were enrolled in this study. CDR-VMAT, VDR-VMAT and mutlicriteria optimization (MCO) VMAT plans were generated for each patient on RayStation treatment planning system with identical objective functions and the dosimetric differences among these three planning schemes were evaluated and compared. Non dosimetric parameters of optimization time, delivery time and delivery accuracy were also evaluated.ResultsThe planning target volume of clinical target volume (PTV-CTV) coverage of CDR-VMAT was a bit inferior to those of VDR- and MCO-VMAT. The V93 (p = 0.01) and V95 (percent volume covered by isodose line) (p = 0.04) for CDR-VMAT, VDR-VMAT and MCO-VMAT were 98.74% ± 0.31%, 99.76% ± 0.16%, 99.38% ± 0.43%, and 98.40% ± 0.48%, 99.53% ± 0.28%, 99.07% ± 0.52%, respectively. However, the CDR-VMAT showed a better dose homogeneity index (HI) (p = 0.01) in PTV-CTV. No significant difference in other target coverage parameters was observed. There was no significant difference in OAR sparing among these three planning schemes except for a higher maximum dose (Dmax) on the brainstem for CDR-VMAT. The brainstem Dmax of CDR-VMAT, VDR-VMAT and MCO-VMAT were 54.26 ± 3.21 Gy, 52.19 ± 1.65 Gy, and 52.79 ± 4.77 Gy, respectively. The average delivery time (p < 0.01) and the average percent γ passing rates (p = 0.02) of CDR-VMAT, VDR-VMAT and MCO-VMAT were 7.01 ± 0.43 min, 4.75 ± 0.07 min, 4.01 ± 0.28 min, and 95.75% ± 2.57%, 97.65% ± 1.45%, 97.36% ± 2.45%, respectively.ConclusionCDR-VMAT offers an additional option of rotational arc radiotherapy for linacs incapable of dose rate variation with a lower initial cost. Its plan quality was acceptable but should be thoroughly checked compared with VDR-VMAT and MCO-VMAT in the treatment of NPC.

Background: Both plan quality and robustness were investigated through comparing some dosimetric metrics between intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and helical tomotherapy based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical cancer. Methods: Both a spot-scanning robust (SRO) IMPT plan and a helical tomotherapy robust (TRO) IMRT plan were generated for each of 18 patients. In order to evaluate the quality of nominal plans without dose perturbations, planning scores (PS) on clinical target volume (CTV) and five organs at risk (OARs) based on clinical experience, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) of rectum and sigmoid were calculated based on Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. Dose volume histogram bands width (DVHBW) were calculated in 28 perturbed scenarios to evaluate plan robustness. Results: Compared with TRO, the average scores of SRO nominal plans were higher in target metrics [V 46.8Gy , V 50Gy , Conformity and Homogeneity](16.5 vs. 15.1), and in OARs metrics (60.9 vs. 53.3), including bladder [V 35 ,V 45 , D mean , D 2cc ], rectum [V 40 ,V 45 ,D 2cc ,D max ], bowel [V 35 ,V 40 ,V 45 , D max ], sigmoid [V 40 ,D max ] and femoral heads [V 30 ,D max ]. Meanwhile, NTCP calculation showed that the toxicities of rectum and sigmoid in SRO were lower than those in TRO (rectum: 2.8% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.05; sigmoid: 5.2% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.05). DVHBW in target coverage for the SRO plan was smaller than that for the TRO plan (0.6% vs. 2.1%), which means that the SRO plan generated a more robust plan in target. Conclusion: Better CTV coverage and OAR Sparing were obtained in SRO nominal plan. Based on NTCP calculation, SRO was expected to allow a small reduction in rectal toxicity. Furthermore, SRO generated a more robust plan in CTV target coverage.

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the interplay effects in proton-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using 4D robust optimization combined with iso-energy layer repainting techniques for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods Twelve patients with early-stage NSCLC who underwent 4DCT were retrospectively selected. A robust CTV-based 4D plan was generated for each based on commercial Treatment planning system (TPS), considering patient setup errors, range uncertainties, and organ motion. The 4D static dose (4DSD) and 4D dynamic dose (4DDD) were calculated using a hybrid deformable algorithm and simulated proton delivery system. An index was developed to quantitatively evaluate the interplay effects. The interplay effects of the 4D robust plan and multiple iso-energy layers (3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) of the robust repainting 4D plan were calculated based on to select the optimal times for layer repainting. Results Due to the interplay effects, the mean target values D 2 and D 5 increased to 1.28 and 1.01%, and the target values D 98 and D 95 decreased to 2.01 and 1.77%, respectively, for the 4D Robust SBRT plan. After multiple iso-energy repainting times, the interplay effects of the target values D 98 and D 95 tended to migrate, from 2.01 to 0.92% in target value D 98 and from 1.77 to 0.89% in target value D 95 , respectively. Moreover, a positive linear correlation was observed between the optimal interplay effect mitigation and target range of motion. Conclusion In proton-based 4D Robust SBRT, the interplay effects degraded the target dose distribution but were mitigated using iso-energy layer repainting techniques. However, there was no significant correlation between the number of repainting layers and improvements in the dose distributions. The optimal layer repainting times based on the interplay effect index were ascertained according to the patient characteristics.

Purpose: Setup uncertainty is a known challenge for stereotactic body radiotherapy planning. Using the internal target volume-based robust optimization was proposed as a more accurate way than the conventional planning target volume-based optimization when considering the robustness criteria. In this study, we aim to investigate the feasibility of internal target volume-based robust optimization in stereotactic body radiotherapy planning using 4-dimensional computed tomography and develop a novel dose–volume histogram band width metric to quantitatively evaluate robustness. Method and Materials: A total of 50 patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer, who underwent stereotactic body radiotherapy, were retrospectively selected. Each of the 50 patients had 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy plans: one with the conventional planning target volume-based optimization and the other with patient-specific robustly optimized internal target volume and with a uniform 5 mm setup error. These were compared with the planning target volume-based optimization method based on both plan quality and robustness. The quality was evaluated using dosimetric parameters and radiobiology parameters, such as high-dose spillage ( V 90%RX, conformity index), intermediate-dose spillage (dose falloff products), low-dose spillage (normal tissue: V 50%RX), and lung tissue complication probability. The robustness was evaluated under a uniform 3 to 5 mm setup errors with a novel proposed metric: dose–volume histogram band width. Results: When compared with planning target volume-based optimization plans, the internal target volume-based robust optimization plans have better conformity of internal target volume coverage (conformity index: 1.17 vs 1.27, P < .001), intermediate-dose spillage (dose falloff product: 129 vs 167, P < .001), low-dose spillage in normal tissue ( V 50%RX: 0.8% vs 1.5%, P < .05), and lower risk of radiation pneumonitis (lung tissue complication probability: 4.2% vs 5.5%, P < .001). For the robustness, dose–volume histogram band width analysis shows that the average values in internal target volume, D 95%, D 98%, and D 99%, of internal target volume-based robust optimization are smaller than that of planning target volume-based optimization (unit cGy) under 3-, 4-, and 5-mm setup uncertainties (3-mm setup uncertainty: 42 vs 73 cGy; 4-mm setup uncertainty: 88 vs 176 cGy; 5-mm setup uncertainty: 229 vs 490 cGy), which might indicate that internal target volume-based robust optimization harbored a greater robustness regardless of the setup errors. Conclusions: Internal target volume-based robust optimization may have clinical potential in offering better plan quality in both target and organs at risk and lower risk of radiation pneumonitis. In addition, the proposed internal target volume-based robust optimization may demonstrate robustness regardless of different setup uncertainties in the stereotactic body radiotherapy planning. Registration: Retrospective study with local ethics committee approval.

No abstract