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。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:强度调制质子疗法(IMPT)在肺癌治疗中面临挑战,如在移动肿瘤中保持计划的稳健性,防止设置、范围误差和相互作用效应。质子弧治疗(PAT)是一种可维持靶点覆盖范围的替代方案,有可能改善风险器官(OAR)的疏通,缩短射束传输时间(BDT),改善患者体验。我们旨在对IMPT与能量层(EL)和光斑分配算法-质子弧治疗(ELSA-PAT)进行系统的计划比较研究,以评估其在肺癌治疗中的潜力:材料和方法:共对14个肺部ELSA-PAT计划与IMPT计划进行了回顾性比较。进行了 4D 最坏情况最小稳健优化,包括 84 种情况(3%,3 毫米)。剂量测定评估包括名义和最坏情况下的目标(临床肿瘤体积 [CTV])和重要 OAR。对最相关的正常组织并发症概率(NTCP)、针对相互作用效应的目标覆盖稳健性和 BDT 进行了评估:结果:CTV D95% 和 D98% 相比没有明显差异。PAT 的保形性更好,达 66% (p = 0.00012),但心脏平均剂量(HMD,23%)更高。PAT的NTCP 2年死亡风险增加了2%。不同技术的总 BDT 值相当。考虑到D1%(1.0 ± 0.8 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.4 Gy)和D98%带宽(0.9 ± 0.9 Gy vs 1.1 ± 1.3 Gy),IMPT比PAT更能抵御相互作用效应:两种技术对靶区的剂量覆盖水平相似。虽然 PAT 提高了剂量一致性,但较高的 HMD 却增加了心脏毒性,这可能是由于选择的计划方法和 OAR 靠近靶点所致。ELs 和光斑的增加提高了 PAT 的 BDT,尽管它可以改善日常治疗工作流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
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