Macarena S Chocan, Sophie Wuyckens, Damien Dasnoy, Dario Di Perri, Elena Borderias Villarruel, Erik Engwall, John A Lee, Ana M Barragan-Montero, Edmond Sterpin
{"title":"采用早期能量层和光斑分配的质子弧治疗肺癌与传统调强质子治疗的剂量学和稳健性分析。","authors":"Macarena S Chocan, Sophie Wuyckens, Damien Dasnoy, Dario Di Perri, Elena Borderias Villarruel, Erik Engwall, John A Lee, Ana M Barragan-Montero, Edmond Sterpin","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) faces challenges in lung cancer treatment, like maintaining plan robustness for moving tumors against setup, range errors, and interplay effects. Proton Arc Therapy (PAT) is an alternative to maintain target coverage, potentially improving organ at risk (OAR) sparing, reducing beam delivery time (BDT), and enhancing patient experience. We aim to perform a systematic plan comparison study between IMPT and energy layer (EL) and spot assignment algorithm - Proton Arc Therapy (ELSA-PAT) to assess its potential for lung cancer treatment.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 14 Lung ELSA-PAT plans were compared retrospectively with IMPT plans. 4D worst-case minimax robust optimization was performed, including 84 scenarios (3%, 3 mm). Dosimetry assessment included target (clinical tumor volume [CTV]) and important OARs, on nominal and worst-case scenarios. Most relevant normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP), target coverage robustness against interplay effect, and BDT were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CTV D95% and D98% showed no significant difference in comparison. PAT demonstrated better conformality by 66% (p = 0.00012) but delivered a higher heart mean dose (HMD, 23%). There was a 2% increase in NTCP 2-year mortality risk with PAT. Total BDT was comparable among techniques. IMPT was more robust than PAT against interplay effect, considering both D1% (1.0 ± 0.8 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.4 Gy) and D98% bandwidths (0.9 ± 0.9 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.3 Gy).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Both techniques provide a similar level of dose coverage to the target volume. Although PAT improved dose conformality, higher HMD translated into increased heart toxicity, presumably due to chosen planning methodology and OAR proximity to target. Increased ELs and spots raised PAT BDT, although it could improve daily treatment workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"63 ","pages":"805-815"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A dosimetric and robustness analysis of proton arc therapy with early energy layer and spot assignment for lung cancer versus conventional intensity modulated proton therapy.\",\"authors\":\"Macarena S Chocan, Sophie Wuyckens, Damien Dasnoy, Dario Di Perri, Elena Borderias Villarruel, Erik Engwall, John A Lee, Ana M Barragan-Montero, Edmond Sterpin\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) faces challenges in lung cancer treatment, like maintaining plan robustness for moving tumors against setup, range errors, and interplay effects. Proton Arc Therapy (PAT) is an alternative to maintain target coverage, potentially improving organ at risk (OAR) sparing, reducing beam delivery time (BDT), and enhancing patient experience. We aim to perform a systematic plan comparison study between IMPT and energy layer (EL) and spot assignment algorithm - Proton Arc Therapy (ELSA-PAT) to assess its potential for lung cancer treatment.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 14 Lung ELSA-PAT plans were compared retrospectively with IMPT plans. 4D worst-case minimax robust optimization was performed, including 84 scenarios (3%, 3 mm). Dosimetry assessment included target (clinical tumor volume [CTV]) and important OARs, on nominal and worst-case scenarios. Most relevant normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP), target coverage robustness against interplay effect, and BDT were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CTV D95% and D98% showed no significant difference in comparison. PAT demonstrated better conformality by 66% (p = 0.00012) but delivered a higher heart mean dose (HMD, 23%). There was a 2% increase in NTCP 2-year mortality risk with PAT. Total BDT was comparable among techniques. IMPT was more robust than PAT against interplay effect, considering both D1% (1.0 ± 0.8 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.4 Gy) and D98% bandwidths (0.9 ± 0.9 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.3 Gy).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Both techniques provide a similar level of dose coverage to the target volume. Although PAT improved dose conformality, higher HMD translated into increased heart toxicity, presumably due to chosen planning methodology and OAR proximity to target. Increased ELs and spots raised PAT BDT, although it could improve daily treatment workflow.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Oncologica\",\"volume\":\"63 \",\"pages\":\"805-815\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538483/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Oncologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40549\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40549","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A dosimetric and robustness analysis of proton arc therapy with early energy layer and spot assignment for lung cancer versus conventional intensity modulated proton therapy.
Background and purpose: Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) faces challenges in lung cancer treatment, like maintaining plan robustness for moving tumors against setup, range errors, and interplay effects. Proton Arc Therapy (PAT) is an alternative to maintain target coverage, potentially improving organ at risk (OAR) sparing, reducing beam delivery time (BDT), and enhancing patient experience. We aim to perform a systematic plan comparison study between IMPT and energy layer (EL) and spot assignment algorithm - Proton Arc Therapy (ELSA-PAT) to assess its potential for lung cancer treatment.
Material and methods: A total of 14 Lung ELSA-PAT plans were compared retrospectively with IMPT plans. 4D worst-case minimax robust optimization was performed, including 84 scenarios (3%, 3 mm). Dosimetry assessment included target (clinical tumor volume [CTV]) and important OARs, on nominal and worst-case scenarios. Most relevant normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP), target coverage robustness against interplay effect, and BDT were evaluated.
Results: CTV D95% and D98% showed no significant difference in comparison. PAT demonstrated better conformality by 66% (p = 0.00012) but delivered a higher heart mean dose (HMD, 23%). There was a 2% increase in NTCP 2-year mortality risk with PAT. Total BDT was comparable among techniques. IMPT was more robust than PAT against interplay effect, considering both D1% (1.0 ± 0.8 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.4 Gy) and D98% bandwidths (0.9 ± 0.9 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.3 Gy).
Interpretation: Both techniques provide a similar level of dose coverage to the target volume. Although PAT improved dose conformality, higher HMD translated into increased heart toxicity, presumably due to chosen planning methodology and OAR proximity to target. Increased ELs and spots raised PAT BDT, although it could improve daily treatment workflow.
期刊介绍:
Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.