Dataset Information

Beam-Specific Spot Guidance and Optimization for PBS Proton Treatment of Bilateral Head and Neck Cancers.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

A multi-field optimization (MFO) technique that uses beam-specific spot placement volumes (SPVs) and spot avoidance volumes (SAVs) is introduced for bilateral head and neck (H&N) cancers. These beam-specific volumes are used to guide the optimizer to consistently achieve optimal organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with target coverage and plan robustness.

Materials and methods

Implementation of this technique using a 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam arrangement is discussed. The generation of beam-specific SPVs and SAVs derived from target and OARs are shown. The SPVs for select fields are further partitioned into optimization volumes for uniform dose distributions that resemble those of single-field optimization (SFO). A conventional MFO plan that does not use beam-specific spot placement guidance (MFOcon) and an MFO plan that uses only beam-specific SPV (MFOspv) are compared with current technique (MFOspv/sav), using both simulated scenarios and forward-calculated plans on weekly verification computed tomography (VFCT) scans.

Results

Dose distribution characteristics of the 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam technique are demonstrated with discussion on OAR sparing. When comparing the MFOcon, MFOspv, and MFOspv/sav, the MFOspv/sav is shown to have superior OAR sparing in 9 of the 14 OARs examined. It also shows clinical plan robustness when evaluated by using both simulated uncertainty scenarios and forward-calculated weekly VFCTs throughout the 7-week treatment course.

Conclusion

The MFOspv/sav technique is a systematic approach using SPVs and SAVs to guide the optimizer to consistently reach desired OAR dose values and plan robustness.

SUBMITTER: Leach K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270101 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the frequency of temporal lobe necrosis (TLN) soon after radiotherapy (RT) and identify differences among patients with various types of head and neck cancer (HNC) and between different RT methods.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 483 patients with HNC who had completed RT in our hospital after January, 2015. These patients were followed-up at the radio-oncology department and received contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) to identify metastases or recurrence of cancer at regular intervals. Meanwhile, the occurrence of TLN, graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V5.0, was recorded. We categorized the patients into nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and non-NPC groups and compared the cumulative occurrence of TLN between the groups using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. We further compared the cumulative occurrence of TLN between proton beam therapy (PBT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with any HNC, NPC, and non-NPC HNC.ResultsCompared with the non-NPC group, the NPC group had a higher frequency of TLN (5.6% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.01) and were more commonly associated with TLN in the Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.01) and the Cox regression model after covariates were adjusted for (adjusted hazard ratio: 13.35, 95% confidence interval: 1.37-130.61) during the follow-up period. Furthermore, the frequency of TLN was similar between patients receiving PBT and those receiving VMAT (PBT vs. VMAT: 4.7% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.76). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the accumulated risks of TLN were similar between PBT and VMAT in patients with any HNC (p = 0.44), NPC (p = 0.84), and non-NPC HNC (p = 0.70).ConclusionOur study demonstrated that patients with NPC are susceptible to TLN during the early period after RT. In addition, PBT may be associated with an equivalent risk of TLN when compared with VMAT in patients with NPC or other HNCs.

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.

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.