Gantry-based pencil beam scanning proton therapy for uveal melanoma: IMPT versus proton arc therapy.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Hang Qi, Lei Hu, Sheng Huang, Yen-Po Lee, Francis Yu, Qing Chen, Yunjie Yang, Minglei Kang, Huifang Zhai, Milo Vermeulen, Andy Shim, Peter Park, Xuanfeng Ding, Jun Zhou, David H Abramson, Jasmine H Francis, Charles B Simone, Christopher A Barker, Haibo Lin
{"title":"Gantry-based pencil beam scanning proton therapy for uveal melanoma: IMPT versus proton arc therapy.","authors":"Hang Qi, Lei Hu, Sheng Huang, Yen-Po Lee, Francis Yu, Qing Chen, Yunjie Yang, Minglei Kang, Huifang Zhai, Milo Vermeulen, Andy Shim, Peter Park, Xuanfeng Ding, Jun Zhou, David H Abramson, Jasmine H Francis, Charles B Simone, Christopher A Barker, Haibo Lin","doi":"10.1186/s13014-025-02621-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study reports the single-institution clinical experience of multifield pencil beam scanning (PBS) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and dosimetric comparison to proton arc for uveal melanoma (UM) in a regular PBS gantry room.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven consecutive UM patients were treated with IMPT to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. A customized gaze-fixation device attached to the thermoplastic mask was used to reproduce the globe position for each patient. IMPT plans were robustly optimized with perturbations of 3 mm setup and 3.5% range uncertainties using 3-4 fields without apertures. Each plan was robustly reoptimized (using the same perturbation parameters) using two non-coplanar arc fields in the RayStation treatment planning system. Treatment quality for both plans was evaluated daily using CBCT-generated synthetic CT. Target coverage, conformity, and mean/maximum doses to adjacent organs were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Proton arc plans provided comparable plan quality compared to IMPT plans. Similar target coverage was achieved, with an average GTV D95% equal to 101.1% [Formula: see text] 1.0% and 101.4% [Formula: see text] 0.4% for IMPT and proton arc plans, respectively. Proton arc improves the conformity index (RTOG) compared to IMPT plans (average 0.96 [Formula: see text] 0.23 vs. 0.88 [Formula: see text] 0.18, p = 0.11). Both modalities met all the clinical goals for organs-at-risk (OARs), while proton arc significantly reduced the maximum dose for the retina from, on average, 54.5 [Formula: see text] 0.7 to 53.2 [Formula: see text] 0.3 Gy (p < 0.01). Treatment evaluation on synthetic CT showed that the doses received by patients were highly consistent with the planned doses, with a relative target coverage (D95%) difference within 3.5% for IMPT and 3.1% for proton arc, and the D95% of actual delivery exceeding 98.7% and 98.2%, respectively. The doses delivered to OARs did not exceed clinical constraints.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is a novel report on proton arc for ocular tumors and gantry-based multifield PBS proton treatment for these tumors. This study demonstrated that both modalities can meet the clinical goals. The IMPT is currently clinically implanted, and 2-field non-coplanar proton arc plans can achieve comparable dosimetric metrics to those of IMPT plans when the deliver technique is matured.</p>","PeriodicalId":49639,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Oncology","volume":"20 1","pages":"48"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963511/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-025-02621-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study reports the single-institution clinical experience of multifield pencil beam scanning (PBS) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and dosimetric comparison to proton arc for uveal melanoma (UM) in a regular PBS gantry room.

Methods: Eleven consecutive UM patients were treated with IMPT to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. A customized gaze-fixation device attached to the thermoplastic mask was used to reproduce the globe position for each patient. IMPT plans were robustly optimized with perturbations of 3 mm setup and 3.5% range uncertainties using 3-4 fields without apertures. Each plan was robustly reoptimized (using the same perturbation parameters) using two non-coplanar arc fields in the RayStation treatment planning system. Treatment quality for both plans was evaluated daily using CBCT-generated synthetic CT. Target coverage, conformity, and mean/maximum doses to adjacent organs were assessed.

Results: Proton arc plans provided comparable plan quality compared to IMPT plans. Similar target coverage was achieved, with an average GTV D95% equal to 101.1% [Formula: see text] 1.0% and 101.4% [Formula: see text] 0.4% for IMPT and proton arc plans, respectively. Proton arc improves the conformity index (RTOG) compared to IMPT plans (average 0.96 [Formula: see text] 0.23 vs. 0.88 [Formula: see text] 0.18, p = 0.11). Both modalities met all the clinical goals for organs-at-risk (OARs), while proton arc significantly reduced the maximum dose for the retina from, on average, 54.5 [Formula: see text] 0.7 to 53.2 [Formula: see text] 0.3 Gy (p < 0.01). Treatment evaluation on synthetic CT showed that the doses received by patients were highly consistent with the planned doses, with a relative target coverage (D95%) difference within 3.5% for IMPT and 3.1% for proton arc, and the D95% of actual delivery exceeding 98.7% and 98.2%, respectively. The doses delivered to OARs did not exceed clinical constraints.

Conclusions: This is a novel report on proton arc for ocular tumors and gantry-based multifield PBS proton treatment for these tumors. This study demonstrated that both modalities can meet the clinical goals. The IMPT is currently clinically implanted, and 2-field non-coplanar proton arc plans can achieve comparable dosimetric metrics to those of IMPT plans when the deliver technique is matured.

基于龙门的铅笔束扫描质子治疗葡萄膜黑色素瘤:IMPT与质子弧治疗。
研究背景本研究报告了多场铅笔束扫描(PBS)强度调制质子疗法(IMPT)的单机构临床经验,以及在常规PBS龙门室内治疗葡萄膜黑色素瘤(UM)与质子弧的剂量学比较:连续对11名UM患者进行了IMPT治疗,治疗剂量为50 Gy,分5次进行。在热塑面罩上安装了一个定制的凝视固定装置,用于再现每位患者的眼球位置。使用 3-4 个不带光圈的场对 IMPT 计划进行了稳健优化,设置扰动为 3 毫米,范围不确定性为 3.5%。在 RayStation 治疗计划系统中,使用两个非共面弧场对每个计划进行了稳健的再优化(使用相同的扰动参数)。每天使用 CBCT 生成的合成 CT 对两个计划的治疗质量进行评估。对目标覆盖率、一致性以及邻近器官的平均/最大剂量进行了评估:结果:质子弧计划提供的计划质量与 IMPT 计划相当。IMPT和质子弧计划的目标覆盖率相似,平均GTV D95% 分别为101.1% [计算公式:见正文] 1.0%和101.4% [计算公式:见正文] 0.4%。与 IMPT 计划相比,质子弧提高了一致性指数(RTOG)(平均 0.96 [公式:见正文] 0.23 vs. 0.88 [公式:见正文] 0.18,p = 0.11)。两种模式都达到了危险器官(OAR)的所有临床目标,而质子弧显著降低了视网膜的最大剂量,从平均 54.5 [公式:见正文] 0.7 降至 53.2 [公式:见正文] 0.3 Gy(p < 0.01)。合成 CT 上的治疗评估显示,患者接受的剂量与计划剂量高度一致,IMPT 和质子弧的相对目标覆盖率(D95%)差值分别在 3.5% 和 3.1% 以内,实际投放的 D95% 分别超过 98.7% 和 98.2%。OAR的剂量未超出临床限制:这是一份关于质子弧治疗眼部肿瘤和基于龙门的多场 PBS 质子治疗眼部肿瘤的新报告。这项研究表明,这两种模式都能达到临床目标。IMPT 目前已在临床上植入,当投放技术成熟时,双场非共面质子弧计划可达到与 IMPT 计划相当的剂量学指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiation Oncology
Radiation Oncology ONCOLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.80%
发文量
181
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Radiation Oncology encompasses all aspects of research that impacts on the treatment of cancer using radiation. It publishes findings in molecular and cellular radiation biology, radiation physics, radiation technology, and clinical oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信