Dataset Information

A novel energy layer optimization framework for spot-scanning proton arc therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Spot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPAT) is an emerging modality to improve plan conformality and delivery efficiency. A greedy and heuristic method is proposed in the existing SPAT algorithm to select energy layers and sequence energy switching with gantry rotation, which does not promise optimality in either dosimetry or efficiency. We aim to develop a method to solve the energy layer switching and dosimetry optimization problems in an integrated framework for SPAT.

Methods

In an integrated approach, energy layer optimization for spot-scanning proton arc therapy (ELO-SPAT) is formulated with a dose fidelity term, a group sparsity regularization, a log barrier regularization, and an energy sequencing (ES) penalty. The combination of L2,1/2-norm group sparsity regularization and log barrier function allows one energy layer being selected per control point. The ES regularization term sorts the delivery sequence from high energy to low energy to reduce the total energy layer switching time (ELST) and subsequently the total delivery time. Within the ES penalty, the gradient of layer weights between adjacent beams is first calculated along beam direction and then along energy direction. The gradients indicate energy switch patterns between two adjacent beams. The time-wise costly energy switch-up is more heavily penalized in the ES term. This ELO-SPAT method was tested on one frontal base-of-skull (BOS) patient, one chordoma (CHDM) patient with a simultaneous integrated boost, one bilateral head-and-neck (H&N) patient, and one lung (LNG) patient. We compared ELO-SPAT with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using discrete beams and SPArc by Ding et al. For the two arc algorithms, both the plans with and without energy sequencing were created and compared.

Results

Energy layer optimization for spot-scanning proton arc therapy reduced the runtime of optimization by 84% on average compared with the greedy SPArc method. In both the ELO-SPAT plans with and without ES, one energy layer per control point was selected. Without ES regularization, the energy sequence was arbitrary, with around 40-60 switch-up for the tested cases. After adding ES regularization, the number of energy switch-up was reduced to less than 20. Compared with the energy sequenced SPArc plans, the ELO-SPAT plans with ES led to 24% less total ELST for synchrotron plans and 14% less for cyclotron plans. Both the ELO-SPAT and SPArc plans achieved better sparing compared with the IMPT plans for most Organs-at-risks (OARs), with or without ES. Without ES, the ELO-SPAT plans achieved further improvement of the OARs compared with the SPArc plans, with an averaged reduction of OAR [Dmean, Dmax] by [1.57, 3.34] GyRBE. Adding the ES regularization degraded the plan quality, but the ELO-SPAT plans still had comparable or slightly better sparing than the SPArc plans with ES, with an averaged reduction of OAR [Dmean, Dmax] by [1.42, 2.34] GyRBE.

Conclusion

We developed a computationally efficient spot-scanning proton arc optimization method, which solved energy layer selection and sequencing in an integrated framework, generating plans with good dosimetry and high delivery efficiency.

SUBMITTER: Gu W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7234928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study investigated the feasibility and potential clinical benefit of utilizing a new proton treatment technique: Spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) therapy for left-sided whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) to further reduce radiation dose to healthy tissue and mitigate the probability of normal tissue complications compared to conventional intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT).MethodsEight patients diagnosed with left-sided breast cancer and treated with breast-preserving surgery followed by whole breast irradiation without regional nodal irradiation were included in this retrospective planning. Two proton treatment plans were generated for each patient: vertical intensity-modulated proton therapy used for clinical treatment (vIMPT, gantry angle 10°-30°) and SPArc for comparison purpose. Both SPArc and vIMPT plans were optimized using the robust optimization of?±?3.5% range and 5 mm setup uncertainties. Root-mean-square deviation dose (RMSD) volume histograms were used for plan robustness evaluation. All dosimetric results were evaluated based on dose-volume histograms (DVH), and the interplay effect was evaluated based on the accumulation of single-fraction 4D dynamic dose on CT50. The treatment beam delivery time was simulated based on a gantry rotation with energy-layer-switching-time (ELST) from 0.2 to 5 s.ResultsThe average D1 to the heart and LAD were reduced to 53.63 cGy and 82.25 cGy compared with vIMPT 110.38 cGy (p?=?0.001) and 170.38 cGy (p?=?0.001), respectively. The average V5Gy and V20Gy of ipsilateral lung was reduced to 16.77% and 3.07% compared to vIMPT 25.56% (p?=?0.001) and 4.68% (p?=?0.003). Skin3mm mean and maximum dose were reduced to 3999.38 cGy and 4395.63 cGy compared to vIMPT 4104.25 cGy (p?=?0.039) and 4411.63 cGy (p?=?0.043), respectively. A significant relative risk reduction (RNTCP?=?NTCPSPArc/NTCPvIMPT) for organs at risk (OARs) was obtained with SPArc ranging from 0.61 to 0.86 depending on the clinical endpoint. The RMSD volume histogram (RVH) analysis shows SPArc provided better plan robustness in OARs sparing, including the heart, LAD, ipsilateral lung, and skin. The average estimated treatment beam delivery times were comparable to vIMPT plans when the ELST is about 0.5 s.ConclusionSPArc technique can further reduce dose delivered to OARs and the probability of normal tissue complications in patients treated for left-sided WBRT.

Project description:PurposePlanning 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.Methods and materialsFor 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.ResultsSFO 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the clinical potential of spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) therapy with a heavy-ion gantry.Methods and materialsA series of in silico studies was conducted via treatment plan optimization in FRoG and the RayStation TPS to compare SHArc therapy against reference plans using conventional techniques with single, parallel-opposed, and 3-field configurations for 3 clinical particle beams (protons [p], helium [4He], and carbon [12C] ions). Tests were performed on water-equivalent cylindrical phantoms for simple targets and clinical-like scenarios with an organ-at-risk in proximity of the target. Effective dose and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETD) distributions for SHArc were evaluated against conventional planning techniques applying the modified microdosimetric kinetic model for considering bio-effect with (α/β)x = 2 Gy. A model for hypoxia-induced tumor radio-resistance was developed for particle therapy with dependence on oxygen concentration and particle species/energy (Zeff/β)2 to investigate the impact on effective dose.ResultsSHArc plans exhibited similar target coverage with unique treatment attributes and distributions compared with conventional planning, with carbon ions demonstrating the greatest potential for tumor control and normal tissue sparing among the arc techniques. All SHArc plans exhibited a low-dose bath outside the target volume with a reduced maximum dose in normal tissues compared with single, parallel-opposed, and 3-field configuration plans. Moreover, favorable LETD distributions were made possible using the SHArc approach, with maximum LETD in the r = 5 mm tumor core (~8 keVμm-1, ~30 keVμm-1, and ~150 keVμm-1 for p, 4He, and 12C ions, respectively) and reductions of high-LET regions in normal tissues and organs-at-risk compared with static treatment beam delivery.ConclusionSHArc therapy offers potential treatment benefits such as increased normal tissue sparing. Without explicit consideration of oxygen concentration during treatment planning and optimization, SHArc-C may mitigate tumor hypoxia-induced loss of efficacy. Findings justify further development of robust SHArc treatment planning toward potential clinical translation.

Project description:To improve the penumbra of low-energy beams used in spot-scanning proton therapy, various collimation systems have been proposed and used in clinics. In this paper, focused on patient-specific brass collimators, the collimator-scattered protons' physical and biological effects were investigated. The Geant4 Monte Carlo code was used to model the collimators mounted on the scanning nozzle of the Hokkaido University Hospital. A systematic survey was performed in water phantom with various-sized rectangular targets; range (5-20 cm), spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) (5-10 cm), and field size (2 × 2-16 × 16 cm2 ). It revealed that both the range and SOBP dependences of the physical dose increase had similar trends to passive scattering methods, that is, it increased largely with the range and slightly with the SOBP. The physical impact was maximized at the surface (3%-22% for the tested geometries) and decreased with depth. In contrast, the field size (FS) dependence differed from that observed in passive scattering: the increase was high for both small and large FSs. This may be attributed to the different phase-space shapes at the target boundary between the two dose delivery methods. Next, the biological impact was estimated based on the increase in dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd ) and relative biological effectiveness (RBE). The LETd of the collimator-scattered protons were several keV/?m higher than that of unscattered ones; however, since this large increase was observed only at the positions receiving a small scattered dose, the overall LETd increase was negligible. As a consequence, the RBE increase did not exceed 0.05. Finally, the effects on patient geometries were estimated by testing two patient plans, and a negligible RBE increase (0.9% at most in the critical organs at surface) was observed in both cases. Therefore, the impact of collimator-scattered protons is almost entirely attributed to the physical dose increase, while the RBE increase is negligible.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of incorporating linear energy transfer (LET) into the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. Because increased LET correlates with increased biological effectiveness of protons, high LETs in target volumes and low LETs in critical structures and normal tissues are preferred in an IMPT plan. However, if not explicitly incorporated into the optimization criteria, different IMPT plans may yield similar physical dose distributions but greatly different LET, specifically dose-averaged LET, distributions. Conventionally, the IMPT optimization criteria (or cost function) only includes dose-based objectives in which the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is assumed to have a constant value of 1.1. In this study, we added LET-based objectives for maximizing LET in target volumes and minimizing LET in critical structures and normal tissues. Due to the fractional programming nature of the resulting model, we used a variable reformulation approach so that the optimization process is computationally equivalent to conventional IMPT optimization. In this study, five brain tumor patients who had been treated with proton therapy at our institution were selected. Two plans were created for each patient based on the proposed LET-incorporated optimization (LETOpt) and the conventional dose-based optimization (DoseOpt). The optimized plans were compared in terms of both dose (assuming a constant RBE of 1.1 as adopted in clinical practice) and LET. Both optimization approaches were able to generate comparable dose distributions. The LET-incorporated optimization achieved not only pronounced reduction of LET values in critical organs, such as brainstem and optic chiasm, but also increased LET in target volumes, compared to the conventional dose-based optimization. However, on occasion, there was a need to tradeoff the acceptability of dose and LET distributions. Our conclusion is that the inclusion of LET-dependent criteria in the IMPT optimization could lead to similar dose distributions as the conventional optimization but superior LET distributions in target volumes and normal tissues. This may have substantial advantages in improving tumor control and reducing normal tissue toxicities.

Project description:PurposeTo quantify the impact of respiratory motion on the treatment of lung tumors with spot scanning proton therapy.Methods and materialsFour-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess the interplay effect, which results from relative motion of the tumor and the proton beam, on the dose distribution in the patient. Ten patients with varying tumor sizes (2.6-82.3 cc) and motion amplitudes (3-30 mm) were included in the study. We investigated the impact of the spot size, which varies between proton facilities, and studied single fractions and conventionally fractionated treatments. The following metrics were used in the analysis: minimum/maximum/mean dose, target dose homogeneity, and 2-year local control rate (2y-LC).ResultsRespiratory motion reduces the target dose homogeneity, with the largest effects observed for the highest motion amplitudes. Smaller spot sizes (σ ≈ 3 mm) are inherently more sensitive to motion, decreasing target dose homogeneity on average by a factor 2.8 compared with a larger spot size (σ ≈ 13 mm). Using a smaller spot size to treat a tumor with 30-mm motion amplitude reduces the minimum dose to 44.7% of the prescribed dose, decreasing modeled 2y-LC from 87.0% to 2.7%, assuming a single fraction. Conventional fractionation partly mitigates this reduction, yielding a 2y-LC of 71.6%. For the large spot size, conventional fractionation increases target dose homogeneity and prevents a deterioration of 2y-LC for all patients. No correlation with tumor volume is observed. The effect on the normal lung dose distribution is minimal: observed changes in mean lung dose and lung V20 are <0.6 Gy(RBE) and <1.7%, respectively.ConclusionsFor the patients in this study, 2y-LC could be preserved in the presence of interplay using a large spot size and conventional fractionation. For treatments using smaller spot sizes and/or in the delivery of single fractions, interplay effects can lead to significant deterioration of the dose distribution and lower 2y-LC.

Project description:Spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT) using multifield optimization (MFO) can generate highly conformal dose distributions, but it is more sensitive to setup and range uncertainties than SSPT using single-field optimization (SFO). The authors compared the two optimization methods for the treatment of head and neck cancer with bilateral targets and determined the superior method on the basis of both the plan quality and the plan robustness in the face of setup and range uncertainties.Four patients with head and neck cancer with bilateral targets who received SSPT treatment in the authors' institution were studied. The patients had each been treated with a MFO plan using three fields. A three-field SFO plan (3F-SFO) and a two-field SFO plan (2F-SFO) with the use of a range shifter in the beam line were retrospectively generated for each patient. The authors compared the plan quality and robustness to uncertainties of the SFO plans with the MFO plans. Robustness analysis of each plan was performed to generate the two dose distributions consisting of the highest and the lowest possible doses (worst-case doses) from the spatial and range perturbations at every voxel. Dosimetric indices from the nominal and worst-case plans were compared.The 3F-SFO plans generally yielded D95 and D5 values in the targets that were similar to those of the MFO plans. 3F-SFO resulted in a lower dose to the oral cavity than MFO in all four patients by an average of 9.9 Gy, but the dose to the two parotids was on average 6.7 Gy higher for 3F-SFO than for MFO. 3F-SFO plans reduced the variations of dosimetric indices under uncertainties in the targets by 22.8% compared to the MFO plans. Variations of dosimetric indices under uncertainties in the organs at risk (OARs) varied between organs and between patients, although they were on average 9.2% less for the 3F-SFO plans than for the MFO plans. Compared with the MFO plans, the 2F-SFO plans showed a reduced dose to the parotids for both the nominal dose and in the worst-case scenario, but the plan robustness in the target of the 2F-SFO plans was not notably greater than that of the MFO plans.Compared with MFO, 3F-SFO improves plan robustness in the targets but degrades dose sparing in the parotids in both the nominal and worst-case scenarios. Although 2F-SFO improves parotid sparing compared with MFO, it produces little improvement in plan robustness. Therefore, considering its tolerable target coverage and sparing of OARs in worst-case scenarios, the authors recommend MFO as the planning method for the treatment of head and neck cancer with bilateral targets.