Partial and full arc with DynamicARC technique in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for bilateral head and neck cancer: A feasibility and dosimetric study.
IF 2 4区 医学Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Suresh Rana, Noufal Manthala Padannayil, Shyam Pokharel, Hina Saeed, Michael Kasper
{"title":"Partial and full arc with DynamicARC technique in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for bilateral head and neck cancer: A feasibility and dosimetric study.","authors":"Suresh Rana, Noufal Manthala Padannayil, Shyam Pokharel, Hina Saeed, Michael Kasper","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A novel proton beam delivery method known as DynamicARC spot scanning has been introduced. The current study aims to determine whether the partial proton arc technique, in conjunction with DynamicARC pencil beam scanning (PBS), can meet clinical acceptance criteria for bilateral head and neck cancer (HNC) and provide an alternative to full proton arc and traditional intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study retrospectively included anonymized CT datasets from ten patients with bilateral HNC, all of whom had previously received photon treatment. The clinical target volumes (CTV) were categorized into three levels: CTV_7000, CTV_5950, and CTV_5600. IMPT plans included three beams, whereas DynamicARC plans included dual-partial-arcs (DPA), single-partial-arc (SPA), and single-full-arc (SFA). All plans underwent robust optimization considering setup (± 3 mm) and range (± 3%) uncertainties applied to the CTVs. DynamicARC plans were evaluated against the NRG-HN009 criteria and IMPT plans using various metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All four techniques-IMPT, DPA, SPA, and SFA-demonstrated substantial compliance with NRG-HN009 dosimetric criteria. DynamicARC produced superior dose conformity, lower hotspot, and improved homogeneity for high-risk CTV compared to IMPT, with comparable performance for intermediate- and low-risk CTVs. DynamicARC reduced the D<sub>mean</sub> to the parotid glands by average differences of 14.5%-22.1% and to the oral cavity by an average difference of 15.75% compared to IMPT. DPA and SPA techniques achieved reductions in total integral dose of 3.7%-5.7% relative to IMPT. Overall, DPA yielded dosimetric results comparable to those of SFA while offering more conformal dose distributions and slightly better organ at risk sparing than SPA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On the ProteusOne with a partial gantry system, DPA and SPA, in conjunction with DynamicARC PBS protons, provided clear dosimetric advantages over three-field IMPT. Future clinical implementation and further research into optimizing DynamicARC protocols are warranted to fully realize the benefits of these techniques in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e14611"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14611","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: A novel proton beam delivery method known as DynamicARC spot scanning has been introduced. The current study aims to determine whether the partial proton arc technique, in conjunction with DynamicARC pencil beam scanning (PBS), can meet clinical acceptance criteria for bilateral head and neck cancer (HNC) and provide an alternative to full proton arc and traditional intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).
Method: The study retrospectively included anonymized CT datasets from ten patients with bilateral HNC, all of whom had previously received photon treatment. The clinical target volumes (CTV) were categorized into three levels: CTV_7000, CTV_5950, and CTV_5600. IMPT plans included three beams, whereas DynamicARC plans included dual-partial-arcs (DPA), single-partial-arc (SPA), and single-full-arc (SFA). All plans underwent robust optimization considering setup (± 3 mm) and range (± 3%) uncertainties applied to the CTVs. DynamicARC plans were evaluated against the NRG-HN009 criteria and IMPT plans using various metrics.
Results: All four techniques-IMPT, DPA, SPA, and SFA-demonstrated substantial compliance with NRG-HN009 dosimetric criteria. DynamicARC produced superior dose conformity, lower hotspot, and improved homogeneity for high-risk CTV compared to IMPT, with comparable performance for intermediate- and low-risk CTVs. DynamicARC reduced the Dmean to the parotid glands by average differences of 14.5%-22.1% and to the oral cavity by an average difference of 15.75% compared to IMPT. DPA and SPA techniques achieved reductions in total integral dose of 3.7%-5.7% relative to IMPT. Overall, DPA yielded dosimetric results comparable to those of SFA while offering more conformal dose distributions and slightly better organ at risk sparing than SPA.
Conclusion: On the ProteusOne with a partial gantry system, DPA and SPA, in conjunction with DynamicARC PBS protons, provided clear dosimetric advantages over three-field IMPT. Future clinical implementation and further research into optimizing DynamicARC protocols are warranted to fully realize the benefits of these techniques in clinical settings.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic