43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A single-field integrated boost treatment planning technique for spot scanning proton therapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans are normally generated utilizing multiple field optimization (MFO) techniques. Similar to photon based IMRT, MFO allows for the utilization of a simultaneous integrated boost in which multiple target volumes are treated to discrete doses simultaneously, potentially improving plan quality and streamlining quality assurance and treatment delivery. However, MFO may render plans more sensitive to the physical uncertainties inherent to particle therapy. Here we present clinical examples of a single-field integrated boost (SFIB) technique for spot scanning proton therapy based on single field optimization (SFO) treatment-planning techniques.

          Methods and materials

          We designed plans of each type for illustrative patients with central nervous system (brain and spine), prostate and head and neck malignancies. SFIB and IMPT plans were constructed to deliver multiple prescription dose levels to multiple targets using SFO or MFO, respectively. Dose and fractionation schemes were based on the current clinical practice using X-ray IMRT in our clinic. For inverse planning, dose constraints were employed to achieve the desired target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Conformality and inhomogeneity indices were calculated to quantify plan quality. We also compared the worst-case robustness of the SFIB, sequential boost SFUD, and IMPT plans.

          Results

          The SFIB technique produced more conformal dose distributions than plans generated by sequential boost using a SFUD technique (conformality index for prescription isodose levels; 0.585 ± 0.30 vs. 0.435 ± 0.24, SFIB vs. SFUD respectively, Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test, p < 0.01). There was no difference in the conformality index between SFIB and IMPT plans (0.638 ± 0.27 vs. 0.633 ± 0.26, SFIB vs. IMPT, respectively). Heterogeneity between techniques was not significantly different. With respect to clinical metrics, SFIB plans proved more robust than the corresponding IMPT plans.

          Conclusions

          SFIB technique for scanning beam proton therapy (SSPT) is now routinely employed in our clinic. The SFIB technique is a natural application of SFO and offers several advantages over SFUD, including more conformal plans, seamless treatment delivery and more efficient planning and QA. SFIB may be more robust than IMPT and has been the treatment planning technique of choice for some patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions.

          Simple tools for studying the effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions on intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans have been developed, and have been applied to both 3D and distal edge tracking (DET) IMPT plans. For the inter-fraction motion, we have investigated the effects of misaligned density heterogeneities, whereas for the inter-field motion analysis, the effects of field misalignment on the plans have been assessed. Inter-fraction motion problems have been analysed using density differentiated error (DDE) distributions, which specifically show the additional problems resulting from misaligned density heterogeneities for proton plans. Likewise, for inter-field motion, we present methods for calculating motion differentiated error (MDE) distributions. DDE and MDE analysis of all plans demonstrate that the 3D approach is generally more robust to both inter-fraction and inter-field motions than the DET approach, but that strong in-field dose gradients can also adversely affect a plan's robustness. An important additional conclusion is that, for certain IMPT plans, even inter-fraction errors cannot necessarily be compensated for by the use of a simple PTV margins, implying that more sophisticated tools need to be developed for uncertainty management and assessment for IMPT treatments at the treatment planning level.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Magnetic scanning system for heavy ion therapy

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties.

              The effects of calculational uncertainties on 3D and distal edge tracking (DET) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans have been investigated. Dose calculation uncertainties have been assessed by comparing analytical and Monte Carlo dose calculations, and potential range uncertainties by recalculating plans with all CT values modified by +/-3%. Analysis of the volume of PTV agreeing to within +/-3% between the two calculations shows that the 3D approach provides significantly improved agreement (87.1 versus 80.3% of points for the 3D and DET approaches, respectively). For the DET approach, doses in the CTV have also been found to globally change by 5% as a result of 3% changes in CT value. When varying the intra-field gradients of the plans a similar trend is seen, but with the more complex plans also being found to be more sensitive to both uncertainties. In conclusion, the DET approach has been found to be relatively sensitive to the calculational errors investigated here. In contrast, the 3D approach appears to be quite robust, unless strong internal gradients are present. Nevertheless, the routine use of uncertainty analysis is advised when assessing all forms of IMPT plans.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                xrzhu@mdanderson.org
                fpoenisch@mdanderson.org
                hengli@mdanderson.org
                xizhang@mdanderson.org
                nsahoo@mdanderson.org
                rywu@mdanderson.org
                xqli@mdanderson.org
                aklee@mdanderson.org
                Eric.Chang@health.usc.edu
                stchoi@mdanderson.org
                tpugh@mdanderson.org
                sjfrank@mdanderson.org
                mgillin@mdanderson.org
                amahajan@mdanderson.org
                dgrossha@mdanderson.org
                Journal
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiation Oncology (London, England)
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-717X
                11 September 2014
                11 September 2014
                2014
                : 9
                : 1
                : 202
                Affiliations
                [ ]Departments of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1150, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX USA
                [ ]Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX USA
                Article
                1167
                10.1186/1748-717X-9-202
                4262206
                25212571
                071effa8-961c-4d0c-8930-6a37058f62f8
                © Zhu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 20 November 2013
                : 5 September 2014
                Categories
                Methodology
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                proton therapy,spot scanning,single-field optimization,single field integrated boost,sfib

                Comments

                Comment on this article