An Analysis of Plan Robustness for Esophageal Tumors: Comparing Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans and Spot Scanning Proton Planning.

Planning studies to compare x-ray and proton techniques and to select the most suitable technique for each patient have been hampered by the nonequivalence of several aspects of treatment planning and delivery. A fair comparison should compare similarly advanced delivery techniques from current clinical practice and also assess the robustness of each technique. The present study therefore compared volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and single-field optimization (SFO) spot scanning proton therapy plans created using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose escalation in midesophageal cancer and analyzed the effect of setup and range uncertainties on these plans. For 21 patients, SIB plans with a physical dose prescription of 2 Gy or 2.5 Gy/fraction in 25 fractions to planning target volume (PTV)50Gy or PTV62.5Gy (primary tumor with 0.5 cm margins) were created and evaluated for robustness to random setup errors and proton range errors. Dose-volume metrics were compared for the optimal and uncertainty plans, with P<.05 (Wilcoxon) considered significant. SFO reduced the mean lung dose by 51.4% (range 35.1%-76.1%) and the mean heart dose by 40.9% (range 15.0%-57.4%) compared with VMAT. Proton plan robustness to a 3.5% range error was acceptable. For all patients, the clinical target volume D98 was 95.0% to 100.4% of the prescribed dose and gross tumor volume (GTV) D98 was 98.8% to 101%. Setup error robustness was patient anatomy dependent, and the potential minimum dose per fraction was always lower with SFO than with VMAT. The clinical target volume D98 was lower by 0.6% to 7.8% of the prescribed dose, and the GTV D98 was lower by 0.3% to 2.2% of the prescribed GTV dose. The SFO plans achieved significant sparing of normal tissue compared with the VMAT plans for midesophageal cancer. The target dose coverage in the SIB proton plans was less robust to random setup errors and might be unacceptable for certain patients. Robust optimization to ensure adequate target coverage of SIB proton plans might be beneficial.

Warren S ，Partridge M ，Bolsi A ，Lomax AJ ，Hurt C ，Crosby T ，Hawkins MA ... -  《-》

Superiority in Robustness of Multifield Optimization Over Single-Field Optimization for Pencil-Beam Proton Therapy for Oropharynx Carcinoma: An Enhanced Robustness Analysis.

To compare the difference in robustness of single-field optimized (SFO) and robust multifield optimized (rMFO) proton plans for oropharynx carcinoma patients by an improved robustness analysis. We generated rMFO proton plans for 11 patients with oropharynx carcinoma treated with SFO intensity modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost prescription. Doses from both planning approaches were compared for the initial plans and the worst cases from 20 optimization scenarios of setup errors and range uncertainties. Expected average dose distributions per range uncertainty were obtained by weighting the contributions from the respective scenarios with their expected setup error probability, and the spread of dose parameters for different range uncertainties were quantified. Using boundary dose distributions created from 56 combined setup error and range uncertainty scenarios and considering the vanishing influence of setup errors after 30 fractions, we approximated realistic worst-case values for the total treatment course. Error bar metrics derived from these boundary doses are reported for the clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). The rMFO plans showed improved CTV coverage and homogeneity while simultaneously reducing the average mean dose to the constrictor muscles, larynx, and ipsilateral middle ear by 5.6 Gy, 2.0 Gy, and 3.9 Gy, respectively. We observed slightly larger differences during robustness evaluation, as well as a significantly higher average brainstem maximum and ipsilateral parotid mean dose for SFO plans. For rMFO plans, the range uncertainty-related spread in OAR dose parameters and many error bar metrics were found to be superior. The SFO plans showed a lower global maximum dose for single-scenario worst cases and a slightly lower mean oral cavity dose throughout. An enhanced robustness analysis has been proposed and implemented into clinical systems. The benefit of better CTV coverage and OAR dose sparing in oropharynx carcinoma patients by rMFO compared with SFO proton plans is preserved in a robustness analysis with consideration of setup error and range uncertainty.

Stützer K ，Lin A ，Kirk M ，Lin L ... -  《-》

Comparison of organ-at-risk sparing and plan robustness for spot-scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc photon therapy in head-and-neck cancer.

Barten DL ，Tol JP ，Dahele M ，Slotman BJ ，Verbakel WF ... -  《-》

Potential of Proton Therapy to Reduce Acute Hematologic Toxicity in Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer.

Radiation therapy dose escalation using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) is predicted to improve local tumor control in esophageal cancer; however, any increase in acute hematologic toxicity (HT) could limit the predicted improvement in patient outcomes. Proton therapy has been shown to significantly reduce HT in lung cancer patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy. Therefore, we investigated the potential of bone marrow sparing with protons for esophageal tumors. Twenty-one patients with mid-esophageal cancer who had undergone conformal radiation therapy (3D50) were selected. Two surrogates for bone marrow were created by outlining the thoracic bones (bone) and only the body of the thoracic vertebrae (TV) in Eclipse. The percentage of overlap of the TV with the planning treatment volume was recorded for each patient. Additional plans were created retrospectively, including a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan with the same dose as for 3D50; a VMAT SIB plan with a dose prescription of 62.5 Gy to the high-risk subregion within the planning treatment volume; a reoptimized TV-sparing VMAT plan; and a proton therapy plan with the same SIB dose prescription. The bone and TV dose metrics were recorded and compared across all plans and variations with respect to PTV and percentage of overlap for each patient. The 3D50 plans showed the highest bone mean dose and TV percentage of volume receiving ≥30 Gy (V30Gy) for each patient. The VMAT plans irradiated a larger bone V10Gy than did the 3D50 plans. The reoptimized VMAT62.5 VT plans showed improved sparing of the TV volume, but only the proton plans showed significant sparing for bone V10Gy and bone mean dose, especially for patients with a larger PTV. The results of the present study have shown that proton therapy can reduced bone marrow toxicity.

Warren S ，Hurt CN ，Crosby T ，Partridge M ，Hawkins MA ... -  《-》

Dosimetric comparison of distal esophageal carcinoma plans for patients treated with small-spot intensity-modulated proton versus volumetric-modulated arc therapies.

Esophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small-spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects. 35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small-spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase-averaged 4D-CT's. The dose-volume-histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose. In the nominal scenario, small-spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean , heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE] , liver V30Gy[RBE] , stomach V45Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean , V5Gy[RBE] , and V20Gy[RBE] , cord Dmax and D 0.03 c m 3 , liver Dmean , heart V20Gy[RBE] , and V30Gy[RBE] , but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95% , D 2 c m 3 , and D5% -D95% , CTVlow D95% , heart Dmean , and V40Gy[RBE] , requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small-spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered. Small-spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small-spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.

Liu C ，Bhangoo RS ，Sio TT ，Yu NY ，Shan J ，Chiang JS ，Ding JX ，Rule WG ，Korte S ，Lara P ，Ding X ，Bues M ，Hu Y ，DeWees T ，Ashman JB ，Liu W ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》