Dataset Information

Dosimetric Uncertainties in Dominant Intraprostatic Lesion Simultaneous Boost Using Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

While intensity modulated proton therapy can deliver simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) with high precision, it is sensitive to anatomic changes. We investigated the dosimetric effects from these changes based on pretreatment cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images and identified the most important factors using a multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPNN).

Methods and Materials

DILs were contoured based on coregistered multiparametric magnetic resonance images for 25 previously treated prostate cancer patients. SIB plans were created with (1) prostate clinical target volume − V70 Gy = 98%; (2) DIL − V98 Gy > 95%; and (3) all organs at risk (OARs)"?> within clinical constraints. SIB plans were applied to daily CBCT-based deformed planning computed tomography (CT)"?>. DIL − V98 Gy, bladder/rectum maximum dose (Dmax) and volume changes, femur shifts, and the distance from DIL to organs at riskOARs"?> in both planning computed tomogramsCT"?> and CBCT were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to compare the changes. MLPNNs were used to model the change in ΔDIL − V98 Gy > 10% and bladder/rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, and the relative importance factors for the model were provided. The performances of the models were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results

Comparing initial plan to the average from evaluation plans, respectively, DIL − V98 Gy was 89.3% ± 19.9% versus 86.2% ± 21.3% (P = .151); bladder Dmax 71.9 ± 0.6 Gy versus 74.5 ± 2.9 Gy (P < .001); and rectum Dmax 70.1 ± 2.4 Gy versus 74.9 ± 9.1Gy (P = .007). Bladder and rectal volumes were 99.6% ± 39.5% and 112.8% ± 27.2%, respectively, of their initial volume. The femur shift was 3.16 ± 2.52 mm. In the modeling of ΔDIL V98 Gy > 10%, DIL to rectum distance changes, DIL to bladder distance changes, and rectum volume changes ratio are the 3 most important factors. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.89, 1.00, and 0.99 for the modeling of ΔDIL − V98 Gy > 10%, and bladder and rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, respectively.

Conclusions

Dosimetric changes in DIL SIB with intensity modulated proton therapy can be modeled and classified based on anatomic changes on pretreatment images by an MLPNN.

SUBMITTER: Zhou J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8581277 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeProstate cancer is multifocal. However, there often exists a single dominant focus in the gland responsible for driving the biology of the disease. Dose escalation to the dominant lesion is a proposed strategy to increase tumor control. We applied radiobiological modeling to evaluate the dosimetric feasibility and benefit of dominant intraprostatic lesion simultaneous in-field boosts (DIL-SIB) to the gross tumor volume (GTV), defined using a novel molecular positron emission tomography (PET) probe (18F-DCFPyL) directed against prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA).Methods and materialsPatients with clinically localized, biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent preoperative [18F]-DCFPyL PET/computed tomography (CT). DIL-SIB plans were generated by importing the PET/CT into the RayStation treatment planning system. GTV-PET for the DIL-SIB was defined by the highest %SUVmax (percentage of maximum standardized uptake value) that generated a biologically plausible volume. Volumetric arc-based plans incorporating prostate plus DIL-SIB treatment were generated. Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) with fractionation schemes and boost doses specified in the FLAME (Investigate the Benefit of a Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer; NCT01168479), PROFIT (Prostate Fractionated Irradiation Trial; NCT00304759), PACE (Prostate Advances in Comparative Evidence; NCT01584258), and hypoFLAME (Hypofractionated Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in prostatE Cancer 2.0; NCT02853110) protocols were compared.ResultsComparative DIL-SIB plans for 6 men were generated from preoperative [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT. Median boost GTV volume was 1.015 cm3 (0.42-1.83 cm3). Median minimum (D99%) DIL-SIB dose for F35BS, F20BS, F5BS, and F5BSH were 97.3 Gy, 80.8 Gy, 46.5 Gy, and 51.5Gy. TCP within the GTV ranged from 84% to 88% for the standard plan and 95% to 96% for the DIL-SIB plans. Within the rest of the prostate, TCP ranged from 89% to 91% for the standard plans and 90% to 92% for the DIL-SIB plans. NTCP for the rectum NTCP was similar for the DIL-SIB plans (0.3%-2.7%) compared with standard plans (0.7%-2.6%). Overall, DIL-SIB plans yielded higher uncomplicated TCP (NTCP, 90%-94%) versus standard plans (NTCP, 83%-85%).ConclusionsPSMA PET provides a novel approach to define GTV for SIB-DIL dose escalation. Work is ongoing to validate PSMA PET-delineated GTV through correlation to coregistered postprostatectomy digitized histopathology.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine morphological and biological control as well as toxicity and quality of life (QoL) of men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with MRI-guided focal boost radiotherapy.Material and methods30 patients with PCa and a visible dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) identified on mpMRI were included in a prospective Phase II trial. Matching point registration of planning CT and T2W, diffusion-weighted and a gradient-recalled echo (GRE) MRI images made in treatment position was used for prostate and tumour delineation. Treatment consisted on 35 daily fractions of 2.17 Gy with a concomitant focal boost to the DIL of 2.43 Gy using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) with intraprostatic fiducial markers. Biochemical failure was analysed using PSA nadir +2 ng/mL criteria and local control using mpMRI evaluation at 6-9 months following RT. Acute and late toxicity were defined according to CTCAE v.4.0 and RTOG/EORTC scales and QoL was assessed using IPSS, EPIC short-form and UCLA-PCI questionnaires.ResultsThe median radiation dose to the prostate was 77.6 Gy (IQR 77.3-78.1), and to the DIL was 85.5 Gy (IQR 85.0-86.0). With a median follow up of 30.0 months (IQR 25.5-40.27), all patients remain free of biochemical relapse. An mpMRI complete response was observed in 25 patients during the first post-treatment evaluation at 6 months. The remaining five patients achieved a complete disappearance of the DIL both on T2 and DWI on the second mpMRI performed at 9 months following treatment. Six out of 30 (20%) patients presented acute Grade 2 urinary toxicity with no Grade 3 acute complications. Acute rectal toxicity was only found in 2 (6.6%) patients (both Grade 1). Only late Grade 1 urinary and rectal complications were observed in 3/30 patients, respectively, with no Grade 2 or more late toxicity. The urinary, bowel and sexual bother EPIC scores were slightly and insignificantly increased in the first 3 months post-treatment, returning to normal afterwards.ConclusionsmpMRI-guided focal boost using VMAT hypofractionated technique is associated with an excellent morphological and functional response control and a safe toxicity profile.Advances in knowledgeIn the present trial, we examined the potential role of mpMRI for radiological assessment (functional and morphological) of treatment response in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with MRI-guided focal radiotherapy dose intensification to dominant Intraprostatic lesion.

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant radio(chemo)therapy of non-metastasized, borderline resectable or unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer is complex and prone to cause side-effects, e.g., in gastrointestinal organs. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) enables a high conformity to the targets while simultaneously sparing the normal tissue such that dose-escalation strategies come within reach. In this in silico feasibility study, we compared four IMPT planning strategies including robust multi-field optimization (rMFO) and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose-escalation in pancreatic cancer patients.MethodsFor six pancreatic cancer patients referred for adjuvant or primary radiochemotherapy, four rMFO-IMPT-SIB treatment plans each, consisting of two or three (non-)coplanar beam arrangements, were optimized. Dose values for both targets, i.e., the elective clinical target volume [CTV, prescribed dose Dpres =?51Gy(RBE)] and the boost target [Dpres =?66Gy(RBE)], for the organs at risk as well as target conformity and homogeneity indexes, derived from the dose volume histograms, were statistically compared.ResultsAll treatment plans of each strategy fulfilled the prescribed doses to the targets (Dpres(GTV,CTV) =?100%, D95%,(GTV,CTV) ??95%, D2%,(GTV,CTV) ??107%). No significant differences for the conformity index were found (p >?0.05), however, treatment plans with a three non-coplanar beam strategy were most homogenous to both targets (p <?0.045). The median value of all dosimetric results of the large and small bowel as well as for the liver and the spinal cord met the dose constraints with all beam arrangements. Irrespective of the planning strategies, the dose constraint for the duodenum and stomach were not met. Using the three-beam arrangements, the dose to the left kidney could be significant decreased when compared to a two-beam strategy (p <?0.045).ConclusionBased on our findings we recommend a three-beam configuration with at least one non-coplanar beam for dose-escalated SIB with rMFO-IMPT in advanced pancreatic cancer patients achieving a homogeneous dose distribution in the target while simultaneously minimizing the dose to the organs at risk. Further treatment planning studies on aspects of breathing and organ motion need to be performed.

Project description:PurposeThe clinical advantage of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may be diminished by range and patient setup uncertainties. We evaluated the effectiveness of robust optimization that incorporates uncertainties into the treatment planning optimization algorithm for treatment of base of skull cancers.Methods and materialsWe compared 2 IMPT planning methods for 10 patients with base of skull chordomas and chondrosarcomas: (1) conventional optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by creating a planning target volume (PTV); and (2) robust optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by optimizing individual spot weights without a PTV. We calculated root-mean-square deviation doses (RMSDs) for every voxel to generate RMSD volume histograms (RVHs). The area under the RVH curve was used for relative comparison of the 2 methods' plan robustness. Potential benefits of robust planning, in terms of target dose coverage and homogeneity and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using established clinical metrics. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged and compared with 2-sided paired t tests. The impact of tumor volume on the effectiveness of robust optimization was also analyzed.ResultsRelative to conventionally optimized plans, robustly optimized plans were less sensitive for both targets and OARs. In the nominal scenario, robust and conventional optimization resulted in similar D95% doses (D95% clinical target volume [CTV]: 63.3 and 64.8 Gy relative biologic effectiveness [RBE]), P <.01]) and D5%-D95% (D5%-D95% CTV: 8.0 and 7.1 Gy[RBE], [P <.01); irradiation of OARs was less with robust optimization (brainstem V60: 0.076 vs 0.26 cm(3) [P <.01], left temporal lobe V70: 0.22 vs 0.41 cm(3), [P = .068], right temporal lobe V70: 0.016 vs 0.11 cm(3), [P = .096], left cochlea Dmean: 28.1 vs 30.1 Gy[RBE], [P = .023], right cochlea Dmean: 23.7 vs 25.2 Gy[RBE], [P = .059]). Results in the worst-case scenario were analogous.ConclusionsRobust optimization is effective for creating clinically feasible IMPT plans for tumors of the base of skull.

Project description:BACKGROUND: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. METHODS: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. RESULTS: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 D0.03cm3 , liver Dmean , heart V20Gy[RBE] , and V30Gy[RBE] , but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95% , D2cm3 , 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. CONCLUSIONS: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.

Project description:PURPOSE:To investigate the consequences of residual setup error on target dose distribution using various image registration strategies for breast cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Among 11 post-lumpectomy patients who received IMPT, 44 dose distributions were computed. For each patient, the original plan (Plan-O) and three verification plans were calculated using different alignments: bony anatomy (VPlan-B), breast tissue (VPlan-T), and skin (VPlan-S). The target coverage were evaluated for each alignment technique. Additionally, 2 subvolumes-BreastNearSkin (1-cm rim of anterior CTV) and BreastNearCW (1-cm rim of posterior CTV)-were created to help localize CTV underdosing. Furthermore, we divided the setup error into the posture error and breast error. Patients with a large posture error and those with good posture setup but a large breast error were identified to evaluate the effect of posture error and breast error. RESULTS:For Plan-O, VPlan-B, VPlan-T, and VPlan-S, respectively, the median (interquartile range) breast CTV D95 was 95.7%(94.7-96.3%), 95.1% (93.9-95.7%), 95.2% (94.8-95.6%), and 95.2% (94.9-95.7%); BreastNearCW D95 was 96.9% (95.6-97.3%), 94.8% (93.5-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.1%); and BreastNearSkin D95 was 94.1% (92.7-94.4%), 93.6% (92.2-94.5%), 93.5% (92.4-94.5%), and 94.4% (92.2-94.5%) of the prescription dose. 4/11 patients had ?1% decrease in breast CTV D95, 1 of whom developed breast edema while the other 3 all had a?>?2o posture error. The CTV D95 variation was within 1% for the patients with good posture setup but >2o breast error. CONCLUSION:Acceptable target coverage was achieved with all three alignment strategies. Breast tissue and skin alignment maintained the breast target coverage marginally better than bony alignment, with which the posterior CTV along the chest wall is the predominant area affected by under-dosing. For target dose distribution, posture error appears more influential than breast error.