Sheng Huang, Haoyang Liu, Jiajian Shen, H. Zhai, M. Kirk, B. Hartl, A. Lin, J. Mcdonough, S. Both, H. Lin
{"title":"新型质子束几何结构对头颈部患者铅笔束扫描治疗的稳健性评价","authors":"Sheng Huang, Haoyang Liu, Jiajian Shen, H. Zhai, M. Kirk, B. Hartl, A. Lin, J. Mcdonough, S. Both, H. Lin","doi":"10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To evaluate the robustness of \nhead and neck treatment using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique with \nrespect to range uncertainty (RU) and setup errors (SE), and to establish a \nrobust PBS planning strategy for future \ntreatment. Methods and Materials: Ten consecutive patients were planned \nwith a novel proton field geometry (combination of two posterior oblique fields \nand one anterior field with gradient dose match) using single-field uniform \ndose (SFUD) planning technique and the proton plans were dosimetrically \ncompared to two coplanar arc VMAT plans. Robustness of the plans, with \nrespect to range uncertainties (RU = ± 3% for proton) and setup errors (SE = \n2.25 mm for proton and VMAT), in terms of deviations to target coverage (CTV \nD98%) and OAR doses (max/mean), were evaluated and compared for each patient \nunder worst case scenarios. Results: Dosimetrically, PBS plans \nprovided better sparing to larynx (p = 0.005), oral cavity (p -1.1% ± \n1.3 % vs -0.4% ± 0.7% for nodal CTV and -1.4% ± \n1.2 vs -0.4% ± 0.5% % for boost CTV). Overall, the \nmagnitudes of variation of CTV D98% to combined SE and RU were found to be \nsimilar to the impact of the SE on the VMAT plans (-1.6% ± \n1.9% vs -1.7% ± 1.4% for nodal CTV and -1.9% ± \n1.6% vs -1.3% ± 1.5% for boost CTV). Compared to VMAT, a \nlarger range of relative dose deviations were found for OARs in proton plans, \nbut safe doses were maintained for cord (41.8 ± 3.6 Gy for PBS and 41.7 ± 3.9 \nGy for VMAT) and brainstem (35.2 ± 8.4 Gy for PBS and 36.2 ± 5.1 Gy for VMAT) \nin worst case scenarios. Conclusions: Compared to VMAT, proton plans \ncontaining three SFUD fields with superior-inferior gradient dose matching had \nimproved sparing to larynx, contralateral parotid and oral cavity, while \nproviding similar robustness of target coverage. Evaluation of OAR dose \nrobustness showed higher sensitivities to uncertainties for proton plans, but \nsafe dose levels were maintained for cord and brainstem.","PeriodicalId":14028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robustness Evaluation of a Novel Proton Beam Geometry for Head and Neck Patients Treated with Pencil Beam Scanning Therapy\",\"authors\":\"Sheng Huang, Haoyang Liu, Jiajian Shen, H. Zhai, M. Kirk, B. Hartl, A. Lin, J. Mcdonough, S. Both, H. Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: To evaluate the robustness of \\nhead and neck treatment using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique with \\nrespect to range uncertainty (RU) and setup errors (SE), and to establish a \\nrobust PBS planning strategy for future \\ntreatment. Methods and Materials: Ten consecutive patients were planned \\nwith a novel proton field geometry (combination of two posterior oblique fields \\nand one anterior field with gradient dose match) using single-field uniform \\ndose (SFUD) planning technique and the proton plans were dosimetrically \\ncompared to two coplanar arc VMAT plans. Robustness of the plans, with \\nrespect to range uncertainties (RU = ± 3% for proton) and setup errors (SE = \\n2.25 mm for proton and VMAT), in terms of deviations to target coverage (CTV \\nD98%) and OAR doses (max/mean), were evaluated and compared for each patient \\nunder worst case scenarios. Results: Dosimetrically, PBS plans \\nprovided better sparing to larynx (p = 0.005), oral cavity (p -1.1% ± \\n1.3 % vs -0.4% ± 0.7% for nodal CTV and -1.4% ± \\n1.2 vs -0.4% ± 0.5% % for boost CTV). Overall, the \\nmagnitudes of variation of CTV D98% to combined SE and RU were found to be \\nsimilar to the impact of the SE on the VMAT plans (-1.6% ± \\n1.9% vs -1.7% ± 1.4% for nodal CTV and -1.9% ± \\n1.6% vs -1.3% ± 1.5% for boost CTV). Compared to VMAT, a \\nlarger range of relative dose deviations were found for OARs in proton plans, \\nbut safe doses were maintained for cord (41.8 ± 3.6 Gy for PBS and 41.7 ± 3.9 \\nGy for VMAT) and brainstem (35.2 ± 8.4 Gy for PBS and 36.2 ± 5.1 Gy for VMAT) \\nin worst case scenarios. Conclusions: Compared to VMAT, proton plans \\ncontaining three SFUD fields with superior-inferior gradient dose matching had \\nimproved sparing to larynx, contralateral parotid and oral cavity, while \\nproviding similar robustness of target coverage. Evaluation of OAR dose \\nrobustness showed higher sensitivities to uncertainties for proton plans, but \\nsafe dose levels were maintained for cord and brainstem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2018.73025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:评估质子铅笔束扫描(PBS)技术在范围不确定性(RU)和设置误差(SE)方面的头颈部治疗的稳健性,并为未来的治疗建立一个稳健的PBS计划策略。方法与材料:采用单场均匀剂量(SFUD)计划技术,对连续10例患者进行新型质子场几何(两个后斜场和一个前斜场的组合,剂量梯度匹配)计划,并将质子计划与两个共面弧VMAT计划进行剂量学比较。在最坏情况下,评估并比较每个患者的计划的稳健性,包括范围不确定性(质子的RU =±3%)和设置误差(质子和VMAT的SE = 2.25 mm),与目标覆盖率(CTV D98%)和OAR剂量(最大/平均)的偏差。结果:剂量学上,PBS计划对喉部(p = 0.005)和口腔(p -1.1%±1.3% vs -0.4%±0.7%淋巴结CTV和-1.4%±1.2 vs -0.4%±0.5% boost CTV)提供了更好的保护。总体而言,CTV D98%对SE和RU组合的变化幅度与SE对VMAT计划的影响相似(节点CTV为-1.6%±1.9% vs -1.7%±1.4%,增压CTV为-1.9%±1.6% vs -1.3%±1.5%)。与VMAT相比,质子计划中桨叶的相对剂量偏差范围更大,但在最坏情况下,脊髓(PBS为41.8±3.6 Gy, VMAT为41.7±3.9 Gy)和脑干(PBS为35.2±8.4 Gy, VMAT为36.2±5.1 Gy)的安全剂量保持不变。结论:与VMAT相比,含有三个SFUD场的质子方案具有优-差梯度剂量匹配,改善了对喉、对侧腮腺和口腔的保留,同时提供了相似的目标覆盖稳健性。OAR剂量稳健性评估显示,质子计划对不确定性具有较高的敏感性,但脊髓和脑干仍保持安全剂量水平。
Robustness Evaluation of a Novel Proton Beam Geometry for Head and Neck Patients Treated with Pencil Beam Scanning Therapy
Background: To evaluate the robustness of
head and neck treatment using proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique with
respect to range uncertainty (RU) and setup errors (SE), and to establish a
robust PBS planning strategy for future
treatment. Methods and Materials: Ten consecutive patients were planned
with a novel proton field geometry (combination of two posterior oblique fields
and one anterior field with gradient dose match) using single-field uniform
dose (SFUD) planning technique and the proton plans were dosimetrically
compared to two coplanar arc VMAT plans. Robustness of the plans, with
respect to range uncertainties (RU = ± 3% for proton) and setup errors (SE =
2.25 mm for proton and VMAT), in terms of deviations to target coverage (CTV
D98%) and OAR doses (max/mean), were evaluated and compared for each patient
under worst case scenarios. Results: Dosimetrically, PBS plans
provided better sparing to larynx (p = 0.005), oral cavity (p -1.1% ±
1.3 % vs -0.4% ± 0.7% for nodal CTV and -1.4% ±
1.2 vs -0.4% ± 0.5% % for boost CTV). Overall, the
magnitudes of variation of CTV D98% to combined SE and RU were found to be
similar to the impact of the SE on the VMAT plans (-1.6% ±
1.9% vs -1.7% ± 1.4% for nodal CTV and -1.9% ±
1.6% vs -1.3% ± 1.5% for boost CTV). Compared to VMAT, a
larger range of relative dose deviations were found for OARs in proton plans,
but safe doses were maintained for cord (41.8 ± 3.6 Gy for PBS and 41.7 ± 3.9
Gy for VMAT) and brainstem (35.2 ± 8.4 Gy for PBS and 36.2 ± 5.1 Gy for VMAT)
in worst case scenarios. Conclusions: Compared to VMAT, proton plans
containing three SFUD fields with superior-inferior gradient dose matching had
improved sparing to larynx, contralateral parotid and oral cavity, while
providing similar robustness of target coverage. Evaluation of OAR dose
robustness showed higher sensitivities to uncertainties for proton plans, but
safe dose levels were maintained for cord and brainstem.