No abstract

Transmission beam (TB) proton therapy (PT) uses single, high energy beams with Bragg-peak behind the target, sharp penumbras and simplified planning/delivery. TB facilitates ultra-high dose-rates (UHDRs, e.g., ≥40 Gy/s), which is a requirement for the FLASH-effect. We investigated (1) plan quality for conventionally-fractionated head-and-neck cancer treatment using spot-scanning proton TBs, intensity-modulated PT (IMPT) and photon volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT); (2) UHDR-metrics. VMAT, 3-field IMPT and 10-field TB-plans, delivering 70/54.25 Gy in 35 fractions to boost/elective volumes, were compared (n = 10 patients). To increase spot peak dose-rates (SPDRs), TB-plans were split into three subplans, with varying spot monitor units and different gantry currents. Average TB-plan organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing was comparable to IMPT: mean oral cavity/body dose were 4.1/2.5 Gy higher (9.3/2.0 Gy lower than VMAT); most other OAR mean doses differed by <2 Gy. Average percentage of dose delivered at UHDRs was 46%/12% for split/non-split TB-plans and mean dose-averaged dose-rate 46/21 Gy/s. Average total beam-on irradiation time was 1.9/3.8 s for split/non-split plans and overall time including scanning 8.9/7.6 s. Conventionally-fractionated proton TB-plans achieved comparable OAR-sparing to IMPT and better than VMAT, with total beam-on irradiation times <10s. If a FLASH-effect can be demonstrated at conventional dose/fraction, this would further improve plan quality and TB-protons would be a suitable delivery system.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Healthy tissue-sparing effects of FLASH (≥40 Gy/s, ≥4–8 Gy/fraction) radiotherapy (RT) make it potentially useful for whole breast irradiation (WBI), since there is often a lot of normal tissue within the planning target volume (PTV). We investigated WBI plan quality and determined FLASH-dose for various machine settings using ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) proton transmission beams (TBs). While five-fraction WBI is commonplace, a potential FLASH-effect might facilitate shorter treatments, so hypothetical 2- and 1-fraction schedules were also analyzed. Using one tangential 250 MeV TB delivering 5 × 5.7 Gy, 2 × 9.74 Gy or 1 × 14.32 Gy, we evaluated: (1) spots with equal monitor units (MUs) in a uniform square grid with variable spacing; (2) spot MUs optimized with a minimum MU-threshold; and (3) splitting the optimized TB into two sub-beams: one delivering spots above an MU-threshold, i.e., at UHDRs; the other delivering the remaining spots necessary to improve plan quality. Scenarios 1–3 were planned for a test case, and scenario 3 was also planned for three other patients. Dose rates were calculated using the pencil beam scanning dose rate and the sliding-window dose rate. Various machine parameters were considered: minimum spot irradiation time (minST): 2 ms/1 ms/0.5 ms; maximum nozzle current (maxN): 200 nA/400 nA/800 nA; two gantry-current (GC) techniques: energy-layer and spot-based. For the test case (PTV = 819 cc) we found: (1) a 7 mm grid achieved the best balance between plan quality and FLASH-dose for equal-MU spots; (2) near the target boundary, lower-MU spots are necessary for homogeneity but decrease FLASH-dose; (3) the non-split beam achieved >95% FLASH for favorable (not clinically available) machine parameters (SB GC, low minST, high maxN), but <5% for clinically available settings (EB GC, minST = 2 ms, maxN = 200 nA); and (4) splitting gave better plan quality and higher FLASH-dose (~50%) for available settings. The clinical cases achieved ~50% (PTV = 1047 cc) or >95% (PTV = 477/677 cc) FLASH after splitting. A single UHDR-TB for WBI can achieve acceptable plan quality. Current machine parameters limit FLASH-dose, which can be partially overcome using beam-splitting. WBI FLASH-RT is technically feasible.