Abstract:Pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy enables better dose conformality for complex anatomical geometries than passive proton scattering techniques, but is more susceptible to organ motion. This becomes an issue when treating moving tumours in the thorax or abdomen. Novel four-dimensional treatment planning approaches have been developed to increase the robustness of PBS plans against motion. However, their efficacy still needs to be examined by means of 4D dynamically accumulated dose (4DDD) analyses.This … Show more
“…Although PBS offers superior dose conformality, it is more susceptible to differences in tissue electron density and therefore is inherently less robust than PS. Nonetheless, robust PBS plans can be achieved provided that motion-robust planning and motion management techniques are used (60,61). In fact, a recent study from Germany showed that 4D-optimized PBS plans provided better sparing of organs at risk than those created with PS (61).…”
Section: Proton Therapy For Liver Metastasesmentioning
Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers less dose to nearby normal organs compared to X-ray therapy (XRT), which is particularly relevant for treating liver cancers given that both mean and low liver dose are among the most significant predictors of radiation induced liver disease (RILD). High-dose PBT has been shown to achieve excellent long-term tumor control with minimal toxicity in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Increasing data support ablative PBT for patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma or liver metastases, especially those with larger tumors not suitable for XRT.
“…Although PBS offers superior dose conformality, it is more susceptible to differences in tissue electron density and therefore is inherently less robust than PS. Nonetheless, robust PBS plans can be achieved provided that motion-robust planning and motion management techniques are used (60,61). In fact, a recent study from Germany showed that 4D-optimized PBS plans provided better sparing of organs at risk than those created with PS (61).…”
Section: Proton Therapy For Liver Metastasesmentioning
Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers less dose to nearby normal organs compared to X-ray therapy (XRT), which is particularly relevant for treating liver cancers given that both mean and low liver dose are among the most significant predictors of radiation induced liver disease (RILD). High-dose PBT has been shown to achieve excellent long-term tumor control with minimal toxicity in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Increasing data support ablative PBT for patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma or liver metastases, especially those with larger tumors not suitable for XRT.
“…Although the investigated case is only limited to one plan and one target, the results can be compared with evaluation of clinical cases. In Pfeiler et al 25 various liver targets with variable motion amplitudes were investigated. The 4DDD was calculated based on a clinical 4DCT and averaged over 60 different starting phases and layer‐switching times.…”
Pencil beam scanning (PBS) for moving targets is known to be impacted by interplay effects. Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT)-based motion evaluation is crucial for understanding interplay and developing mitigation strategies. Availability of high-quality 4DCTs with variable breathing traces is limited. Purpose of this work is the development of a framework for interplay analysis using 4D-XCAT phantoms in conjunction with time-resolved irradiation patterns in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). Four-dimensional dynamically accumulated dose distributions (4DDDs) are simulated in an in-silico study for a PBS liver treatment. Methods: An XCAT phantom with 50 phases, varying linearly in amplitude each by 1 mm, was combined with the RayStation TPS (7.99.10). Deformable registration was used with time-resolved dose calculation, mapping XCAT phases to motion signals. To illustrate the applicability of the method a two-field liver irradiation plan was used. A variety sin 4 type motion signals, varying in amplitude (1-20 mm), period (1.6-5.2 s) and phase (0-2π) were applied. Either single variable variations or random combinations were selected. The interplay effect within a clinical target (5 cm diameter) was characterized in terms of homogeneity index (HI5), with and without five paintings. In total 2092 scenarios were analyzed within RayStation. Results: A framework is presented for interplay research, allowing for flexibility in determining motion management techniques, increasing reproducibility, and enabling comparisons of different methods. A case study showed the interplay effect was correlated with amplitude and strongly affected by the starting phase, leading to large variance. The average of all scenarios (single fraction) resulted in HI5 of 0.31 (AE0.11), while introduction of five times layered repainting reduced this to 0.11(AE0.03). Conclusion: The developed framework, which uses the XCAT phantom and RayStation, allows detailed analysis of motion in context of PBS with comparable results to clinical cases. Flexibility in
“…The isocenter shift applied to the RO was set to 3 mm (e.g. Pfeiler et al 41 applied a 2 mm). This approach is not sufficient for structures such as stomach or bowels.…”
Purpose: To investigate the role of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients to be treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in a risk-adapted dose prescription regimen. Methods: A cohort of 30 patients was retrospectively selected as “at-risk” of dose de-escalation due to the proximity of the target volumes to dose-limiting healthy structures. IMPT plans were compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) RapidArc (RA) plans. The maximum dose prescription foreseen was 75 Gy in 3 fractions. The dosimetric analysis was performed on several quantitative metrics on the target volumes and organs at risk to identify the relative improvement of IMPT over VMAT and to determine if IMPT could mitigate the need of dose reduction and quantify the consequent potential patient accrual rate for protons. Results: IMPT and VMAT plans resulted in equivalent target dose distributions: both could ensure the required coverage for CTV and PTV. Systematic and significant improvements were observed with IMPT for all organs at risk and metrics. An average gain of 9.0 ± 11.6, 8.5 ± 7.7, 5.9 ± 7.1, 4.2 ± 6.4, 8.9 ± 7.1, 6.7 ± 7.5 Gy was found in the near-to-maximum doses for the ribs, chest wall, heart, duodenum, stomach and bowel bag respectively. Twenty patients violated one or more binding constraints with RA, while only 2 with IMPT. For all these patients, some dose de-intensification would have been required to respect the constraints. For photons, the maximum allowed dose ranged from 15.0 to 20.63 Gy per fraction while for the 2 proton cases it would have been 18.75 or 20.63 Gy. Conclusion: The results of this in-silico planning study suggests that IMPT might result in advantages compared to photon-based VMAT for HCC patients to be treated with ablative SBRT. In particular, the dosimetric characteristics of protons may avoid the need for dose de-escalation in a risk-adapted prescription regimen for those patients with lesions located in proximity of dose-limiting healthy structures. Depending on the selection thresholds, the number of patients eligible for treatment at the full dose can be significantly increased with protons.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.