Dataset Information

Proton therapy for non-squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: planning comparison and toxicity.

ABSTRACT: To investigate optimal treatment planning using proton beams for non-squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (NSCHN), the dose distributions of plans involving pencil beam scanning (PBS) with or without a patient-specific aperture system (PSAS), passive-scattering proton therapy (PSPT) and X-ray intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were compared. As clinical results, toxicities of PBS with PSAS, including changes in quality of life, were reported. Between April 2014 and August 2016, a total of 30 patients were treated using PBS with PSAS. In 20 patients selected at random, the dose distributions of PBS with or without the PSAS, PSPT and IMRT plans were compared. Neutron exposure by proton therapy was calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Toxicities were scored according to CTCAE ver. 4.0. Patients completed EORTC quality of life survey forms (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-HN35) before and 0-12 months after proton therapy. The 95% conformity number of PBS with the PSAS plan was the best, and significant differences were detected among the four plans (P < 0.05, Bonferroni tests). Neutron generation by PSAS was ~1.1-fold higher, but was within an acceptable level. No grade 3 or higher acute dermatitis was observed. Pain, appetite loss and increased weight loss were more likely at the end of treatment, but recovered by the 3 month follow-up and returned to the pretreatment level at the 12 month follow-up. PBS with PSAS reduced the penumbra and improved dose conformity in the planning target volume. PBS with PSAS was tolerated well for NSCHN.

SUBMITTER: Iwata H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6805978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages for several treatment sites, including head and neck (H&N). However, to achieve the optimal target coverage and robustness, these plans can be complex and time consuming to develop and optimize. Automating the treatment planning process can ensure a high-quality and standardized plan, reduce burden to the planner, and decrease time-to-treatment. We utilized in-house scripting to automate a four-field multi-field optimization (MFO) H&N planning technique.Methods and materialsTen bilateral H&N patients were planned in RayStation v6 with a four-field modified-X beam configuration using MFO planning. Automation included creation of avoidance structures to control spot placement and development of standardized beams, PBS spot settings, robust optimization objectives, and patient-specific predicted planning constraints. Each patient was planned both with and without automation to evaluate differences in planning time, perceived effort and plan quality, plan robustness, and OAR sparing.ResultsOn average, scripted plans required 3.2 h, compared to 4.3 h without the script. There was no difference in target coverage or plan robustness with or without automation. Automation significantly reduced mean dose to the oral cavity, parotids, esophagus, trachea, and larynx. Perceived effort was scaled from 1 (minimum effort) to 100 (maximum effort), and automation reduced perceived effort by 42% (p < 0.05). Two non-scripted plans required re-planning due to errors.ConclusionsAutomation of this multi-beam, the MFO proton planning process reduced planning time and improved OAR sparing compared to the same planning process without scripting. Scripting generation of complex structures and planning objectives reduced burden on the planner. With most current treatment planning software, this automation is simple to implement and can standardize quality of care across all treatment planners.

Project description:Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to uncertainties in beam range and patient setup. Conventionally, these uncertainties are dealt using geometrically expanded planning target volume (PTV). In this paper, the authors evaluated a robust optimization method that deals with the uncertainties directly during the spot weight optimization to ensure clinical target volume (CTV) coverage without using PTV. The authors compared the two methods for a population of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients.Two sets of IMPT plans were generated for 14 H&N cases, one being PTV-based conventionally optimized and the other CTV-based robustly optimized. For the PTV-based conventionally optimized plans, the uncertainties are accounted for by expanding CTV to PTV via margins and delivering the prescribed dose to PTV. For the CTV-based robustly optimized plans, spot weight optimization was guided to reduce the discrepancy in doses under extreme setup and range uncertainties directly, while delivering the prescribed dose to CTV rather than PTV. For each of these plans, the authors calculated dose distributions under various uncertainty settings. The root-mean-square dose (RMSD) for each voxel was computed and the area under the RMSD-volume histogram curves (AUC) was used to relatively compare plan robustness. Data derived from the dose volume histogram in the worst-case and nominal doses were used to evaluate the plan optimality. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged over the 14 cases and were compared with two-sided paired t tests.CTV-based robust optimization led to more robust (i.e., smaller AUCs) plans for both targets and organs. Under the worst-case scenario and the nominal scenario, CTV-based robustly optimized plans showed better target coverage (i.e., greater D95%), improved dose homogeneity (i.e., smaller D5% - D95%), and lower or equivalent dose to organs at risk.CTV-based robust optimization provided significantly more robust dose distributions to targets and organs than PTV-based conventional optimization in H&N using IMPT. Eliminating the use of PTV and planning directly based on CTV provided better or equivalent normal tissue sparing.

Dataset Information

Proton therapy for non-squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: planning comparison and toxicity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets