Spot-Scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) Therapy: The First Robust and Delivery-Efficient Spot-Scanning Proton Arc Therapy.
To present a novel robust and delivery-efficient spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy technique.
A SPArc optimization algorithm was developed that integrates control point resampling, energy layer redistribution, energy layer filtration, and energy layer resampling. The feasibility of such a technique was evaluated using sample patients: 1 patient with locally advanced head and neck oropharyngeal cancer with bilateral lymph node coverage, and 1 with a nonmobile lung cancer. Plan quality, robustness, and total estimated delivery time were compared with the robust optimized multifield step-and-shoot arc plan without SPArc optimization (Arcmulti-field) and the standard robust optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan. Dose-volume histograms of target and organs at risk were analyzed, taking into account the setup and range uncertainties. Total delivery time was calculated on the basis of a 360° gantry room with 1 revolutions per minute gantry rotation speed, 2-millisecond spot switching time, 1-nA beam current, 0.01 minimum spot monitor unit, and energy layer switching time of 0.5 to 4 seconds.
The SPArc plan showed potential dosimetric advantages for both clinical sample cases. Compared with IMPT, SPArc delivered 8% and 14% less integral dose for oropharyngeal and lung cancer cases, respectively. Furthermore, evaluating the lung cancer plan compared with IMPT, it was evident that the maximum skin dose, the mean lung dose, and the maximum dose to ribs were reduced by 60%, 15%, and 35%, respectively, whereas the conformity index was improved from 7.6 (IMPT) to 4.0 (SPArc). The total treatment delivery time for lung and oropharyngeal cancer patients was reduced by 55% to 60% and 56% to 67%, respectively, when compared with Arcmulti-field plans.
The SPArc plan is the first robust and delivery-efficient proton spot-scanning arc therapy technique, which could potentially be implemented into routine clinical practice.
Ding X
，Li X
，Zhang JM
，Kabolizadeh P
，Stevens C
，Yan D
... -
《-》
Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A dosimetric comparative study.
To compare dosimetric performance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
A total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D-CTs. The dose-volume-histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Compared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax , heart Dmean , and lung V5 Gy[ RBE ] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean , but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax , lung Dmean , and V5 Gy[ RBE ] . Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered.
Small-spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.
Liu C
，Sio TT
，Deng W
，Shan J
，Daniels TB
，Rule WG
，Lara PR
，Korte SM
，Shen J
，Ding X
，Schild SE
，Bues M
，Liu W
... -
《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》
Technical Note: Treatment planning system (TPS) approximations matter - comparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan quality and robustness between a commercial and an in-house developed TPS for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Approximate dose calculation methods were used in the nominal dose distribution and the perturbed dose distributions due to uncertainties in a commercial treatment planning system (CTPS) for robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We aimed to investigate whether the approximations influence plan quality, robustness, and interplay effect of the resulting IMPT plans for the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer patients.
Ten consecutively treated locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were selected. Two IMPT plans were created for each patient using our in-house developed TPS, named "Solo," and also the CTPS, EclipseTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively. The plans were designed to deliver prescription doses to internal target volumes (ITV) drawn by a physician on averaged four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT). Solo plans were imported back to CTPS, and recalculated in CTPS for fair comparison. Both plans were further verified for each patient by recalculating doses in the inhalation and exhalation phases to ensure that all plans met clinical requirements. Plan robustness was quantified on all phases using dose-volume-histograms (DVH) indices in the worst-case scenario. The interplay effect was evaluated for every plan using an in-house developed software, which randomized starting phases of each field per fraction and accumulated dose in the exhalation phase based on the patient's breathing motion pattern and the proton spot delivery in a time-dependent fashion. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Compared to the plans generated using CTPS on the averaged CT, Solo plans had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity (normalized by the prescription dose) in the worst-case scenario [ITV D95% : 98.04% vs 96.28%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.020; ITV D5% -D95% : 7.20% vs 9.03%, P = 0.049] while all DVH indices were comparable in the nominal scenario. On the inhalation phase, Solo plans had better target dose coverage and cord Dmax in the nominal scenario [ITV D95% : 99.36% vs 98.45%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.014; cord Dmax : 20.07 vs 23.71 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027] with better target coverage and cord Dmax in the worst-case scenario [ITV D95% : 97.89% vs 96.47%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax : 24.57 vs 28.14 Gy(RBE), P = 0.037]. On the exhalation phase, similar phenomena were observed in the nominal scenario [ITV D95% : 99.63% vs 98.87%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax : 19.67 vs 23.66 Gy(RBE), P = 0.039] and in the worst-case scenario [ITV D95% : 98.20% vs 96.74%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.027; cord Dmax : 23.47 vs 27.93 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027]. In terms of interplay effect, plans generated by Solo had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity, less hot spots, and lower esophageal Dmean , and cord Dmax [ITV D95% : 101.81% vs 98.68%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.002; ITV D5% -D95% : 2.94% vs 7.51%, P = 0.002; cord Dmax : 18.87 vs 22.29 Gy(RBE), P = 0.014].
Solo-generated IMPT plans provide improved cord sparing, better target robustness in all considered phases, and reduced interplay effect compared with CTPS. Consequently, the approximation methods currently used in commercial TPS programs may have space for improvement in generating optimal IMPT plans for patient cases with locally advanced lung cancer.
Liu C
，Yu NY
，Shan J
，Bhangoo RS
，Daniels TB
，Chiang JS
，Ding X
，Lara P
，Patrick CL
，Archuleta JP
，DeWees T
，Hu Y
，Schild SE
，Bues M
，Sio TT
，Liu W
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
