D. Yeung

DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON OF THREE DIFFERENT INVOLVED NODAL IRRADIATION TECHNIQUES FOR STAGE II HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA PATIENTS: CONVENTIONAL RADIOTHERAPY, INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY, AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROTON RADIOTHERAPY

PURPOSE To compare the dose distribution to targeted and nontargeted tissues in Hodgkins lymphoma patients using conventional radiotherapy (CRT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), and three-dimensional proton RT (3D-PRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS CRT, IMRT, and 3D-PRT treatment plans delivering 30 cobalt Gray equivalent (CGE)/Gy to an involved nodal field were created for 9 Stage II Hodgkins lymphoma patients (n = 27 plans). The dosimetric endpoints were compared. RESULTS The planning target volume was adequately treated using all three techniques. The IMRT plan produced the most conformal high-dose distribution; however, the 3D-PRT plan delivered the lowest mean dose to nontarget tissues, including the breast, lung, and total body. The relative reduction in the absolute lung volume receiving doses of 4-16 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with CRT ranged from 26% to 37% (p < .05), and the relative reduction in the absolute lung volume receiving doses of 4-10 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with IMRT was 48-65% (p < .05). The relative reduction in absolute total body volume receiving 4-30 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with CRT was 47% (p < .05). The relative reduction in absolute total body volume receiving a dose of 4 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with IMRT was 63% (p = .03). The mean dose to the breast was significantly less for 3D-PRT than for either IMRT or CRT (p = .03) The mean dose and absolute volume receiving 4-30 CGE/Gy for the heart, thyroid, and salivary glands were similar for the three modalities. CONCLUSION In this favorable subset of Hodgkins lymphoma patients without disease in or below the hila, 3D-PRT significantly reduced the dose to the breast, lung, and total body. These observed dosimetric advantages might improve the clinical outcomes of Hodgkins lymphoma patients by reducing the risk of late radiation effects related to low-to-moderate doses in nontargeted tissues.

Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: Rationale, potential indications, practical considerations, and current clinical evidence

Abstract There is a strong rationale for potential benefits from proton therapy (PT) for selected cancers of the head and neck because of the opportunity to improve the therapeutic ratio by improving radiation dose distributions and because of the significant differences in radiation dose distribution achievable with x-ray-based radiation therapy (RT) and PT. Comparisons of dose distributions between x-ray-based and PT plans in selected cases show specific benefits in dose distribution likely to translate into improved clinical outcomes. However, the use of PT in head and neck cancers requires special considerations in the simulation and treatment planning process, and currently available PT technology may not permit realization of the maximum potential benefits of PT. To date, few clinical data are available, but early clinical experiences in sinonasal tumors in particular suggest significant improvements in both disease control and radiation-related toxicity.

Proton therapy for maxillary sinus carcinoma.

Objectives:To compare the dose-volume data of three-dimensional conformal proton therapy (3DCPT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for a paranasal sinus malignancy. Methods:3DCPT and IMRT plans were created for a T4N0 maxillary sinus carcinoma. Results:The target volume dose distributions were comparable for 3DCPT and IMRT. The mean and integral doses for all normal tissues were lower for 3DCPT. The maximum doses for both plans to the ipsilateral optic nerve/retina/lens, temporal lobe, pituitary, and brain exceeded tolerance doses. The contralateral parotid, lacrimal gland, and lens were avoided with 3DCPT. Neither 3DCPT nor IMRT exceeded the maximal tolerated dose for the brainstem, optic chiasm, contralateral temporal lobe, parotid, or lacrimal gland. Conclusions:Both 3DCPT and IMRT sufficiently covered the target volume(s). Although 3DCPT reduced the mean and integral dose to all of the normal tissues, both 3DCPT and IMRT irradiated the ipsilateral optic structures beyond acceptable tolerance doses.

Dosimetric properties of a proton beamline dedicated to the treatment of ocular disease

PURPOSE A commercial proton eyeline has been developed to treat ocular disease. Radiotherapy of intraocular lesions (e.g., uveal melanoma, age-related macular degeneration) requires sharp dose gradients to avoid critical structures like the macula and optic disc. A high dose rate is needed to limit patient gazing times during delivery of large fractional dose. Dose delivery needs to be accurate and predictable, not in the least because current treatment planning algorithms have limited dose modeling capabilities. The purpose of this paper is to determine the dosimetric properties of a new proton eyeline. These properties are compared to those of existing systems and evaluated in the context of the specific clinical requirements of ocular treatments. METHODS The eyeline is part of a high-energy, cyclotron-based proton therapy system. The energy at the entrance of the eyeline is 105 MeV. A range modulator (RM) wheel generates the spread-out Bragg peak, while a variable range shifter system adjusts the range and spreads the beam laterally. The range can be adjusted from 0.5 up to 3.4 g/cm(2); the modulation width can be varied in steps of 0.3 g/cm(2) or less. Maximum field diameter is 2.5 cm. All fields can be delivered with a dose rate of 30 Gy/min or more. The eyeline is calibrated according to the IAEA TRS-398 protocol using a cylindrical ionization chamber. Depth dose distributions and dose/MU are measured with a parallel-plate ionization chamber; lateral profiles with radiochromic film. The dose/MU is modeled as a function of range, modulation width, and instantaneous MU rate with fit parameters determined per option (RM wheel). RESULTS The distal fall-off of the spread-out Bragg peak is 0.3 g/cm(2), larger than for most existing systems. The lateral penumbra varies between 0.9 and 1.4 mm, except for fully modulated fields that have a larger penumbra at skin. The source-to-axis distance is found to be 169 cm. The dose/MU shows a strong dependence on range (up to 4%/mm). A linear increase in dose/MU as a function of instantaneous MU rate is observed. The dose/MU model describes the measurements with an accuracy of ± 2%. Neutron dose is found to be 146 ± 102 μSv/Gy at the contralateral eye and 19 ± 13 μSv/Gy at the chest. CONCLUSIONS Measurements show the proton eyeline meets the requirements to effectively treat ocular disease.

Dosimetric uncertainty in prostate cancer proton radiotherapy

PURPOSE The authors we evaluate the uncertainty in proton therapy dose distribution for prostate cancer due to organ displacement, varying penumbra width of proton beams, and the amount of rectal gas inside the rectum. METHODS AND MATERIALS Proton beam treatment plans were generated for ten prostate patients with a minimum dose of 74.1 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) to the planning target volume (PTV) while 95% of the PTV received 78 CGE. Two lateral or lateral oblique proton beams were used for each plan. The authors we investigated the uncertainty in dose to the rectal wall (RW) and the bladder wall (BW) due to organ displacement by comparing the dose-volume histograms (DVH) calculated with the original or shifted contours. The variation between DVHs was also evaluated for patients with and without rectal gas in the rectum for five patients who had 16 to 47 cc of visible rectal gas in their planning computed tomography (CT) imaging set. The uncertainty due to the varying penumbra width of the delivered protons for different beam setting options on the proton delivery system was also evaluated. RESULTS For a 5 mm anterior shift, the relative change in the RW volume receiving 70 CGE dose (V70) was 37.9% (5.0% absolute change in 13.2% of a mean V70). The relative change in the BW volume receiving 70 CGE dose (V70) was 20.9% (4.3% absolute change in 20.6% of a mean V70) with a 5 mm inferior shift. A 2 mm penumbra difference in beam setting options on the proton delivery system resulted in the relative variations of 6.1% (0.8% absolute change) and 4.4% (0.9% absolute change) in V70 of RW and BW, respectively. The data show that the organ displacements produce absolute DVH changes that generally shift the entire isodose line while maintaining the same shape. The overall shape of the DVH curve for each organ is determined by the penumbra and the distance of the target in beams eye view (BEV) from the block edge. The beam setting option producing a 2 mm sharper penumbra at the isocenter can reduce the magnitude of maximal doses to the RW by 2% compared to the alternate option utilizing the same block margin of 7 mm. The dose to 0.1 cc of the femoral head on the distal side of the lateral-posterior oblique beam is increased by 25 CGE for a patient with 25 cc of rectal gas. CONCLUSION Variation in the rectal and bladder wall DVHs due to uncertainty in the position of the organs relative to the location of sharp dose falloff gradients should be accounted for when evaluating treatment plans. The proton beam delivery option producing a sharper penumbra reduces maximal doses to the rectal wall. Lateral-posterior oblique beams should be avoided in patients prone to develop a large amount of rectal gas.

Dosimetric characterization of whole brain radiotherapy of pediatric patients using modulated proton beams

This study was designed to investigate dosimetric variations between proton plans with (PPW) and without (PPWO), a compensator for whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). The retrospective study on PPW and PPWO in Eclipse and XiO systems and photon plans (XP) using controlled segments in Pinnacle system was performed on nine pediatric patients for craniospinal irradiations. DVHs and derived metrics, such as the homogeneity index (HI), the doses to 2%(D2%) and 5%(D5%) volumes, and mean dose (Dmean) of the whole brain (i.e., PTV), and the organs at risk (OARs) such as lens and skull, were obtained. The PPW plans from both Eclipse and XiO systems uncovered the following advantages: (1) encompassing a cribriform plate area with the 100% isodose line was better than either PPWO or XP, according to calculated two‐dimensional distributions of one patient; (2) the mean value of D5% for lens was reduced to 23.6% of DP from 54.1% for PPWO or 41.6% for XP; and (3) the mean value of Dmean for skull was reduced to 94.8% of DP from either 98.4% for PPWO or 98.3% for XP. However, the PPW plans also exposed several disadvantages including: (1) the HI of PTV increased to 7.7 from 4.7 for PPWO or 3.7 for XP; (2) D2% to PTV increased to 108.8% of DP from 104.8% for PPWO or 105.1% for XP; and (3) D5% to the skull increased to 104.9% of DP from 101.6% for PPWO or 103.4% of for XP. One‐half of the observed variations were caused by different penumbra on lateral profiles and distal fall‐off depth doses of protons in Eclipse and XiO. Because the utilization on the sharp proton distal fall‐off was limited for WBRT, the difference between PPW and PPWO or XP indicated no distinguishable improvement by using a compensator in proton plans. PACS number: 87.55.‐x

Dose–Volume Differences for Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Segmentation and Planning for Proton Prostate Cancer Therapy

PURPOSE To determine the influence of magnetic-resonance-imaging (MRI)-vs. computed-tomography (CT)-based prostate and normal structure delineation on the dose to the target and organs at risk during proton therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Fourteen patients were simulated in the supine position using both CT and T2 MRI. The prostate, rectum, and bladder were delineated on both imaging modalities. The planning target volume (PTV) was generated from the delineated prostates with a 5-mm axial and 8-mm superior and inferior margin. Two plans were generated and analyzed for each patient: an MRI plan based on the MRI-delineated PTV, and a CT plan based on the CT-delineated PTV. Doses of 78 Gy equivalents (GE) were prescribed to the PTV. RESULTS Doses to normal structures were lower when MRI was used to delineate the rectum and bladder compared with CT: bladder V50 was 15.3% lower (p = 0.04), and rectum V50 was 23.9% lower (p = 0.003). Poor agreement on the definition of the prostate apex was seen between CT and MRI (p = 0.007). The CT-defined prostate apex was within 2 mm of the apex on MRI only 35.7% of the time. Coverage of the MRI-delineated PTV was significantly decreased with the CT-based plan: the minimum dose to the PTV was reduced by 43% (p < 0.001), and the PTV V99% was reduced by 11% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Using MRI to delineate the prostate results in more accurate target definition and a smaller target volume compared with CT, allowing for improved target coverage and decreased doses to critical normal structures.

Evaluation of the range shifter model for proton pencil-beam scanning for the Eclipse v.11 treatment planning system

Existing proton therapy pencil‐beam scanning (PBS) systems have limitations on the minimum range to which a patient can be treated. This limitation arises from practical considerations, such as beam current intensity, layer spacing, and delivery time. The range shifter (RS) — a slab of stopping material inserted between the nozzle and the patient — is used to reduce the residual range of the incident beam so that the treatment ranges can be extended to shallow depths. Accurate modeling of the RS allows one to calculate the beam spot size entering the patient, given the proton energy, for arbitrary positions and thicknesses of the RS in the beam path. The Eclipse version 11 (v11) treatment planning system (TPS) models RS‐induced beam widening by incorporating the scattering properties of the RS material into the V‐parameter. Monte Carlo simulations with Geant4 code and analytical calculations using the Fermi‐Eyges (FE) theory with Highland approximation of multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) were employed to calculate proton beam widening due to scattering in the RS. We demonstrated that both methods achieved consistent results and could be used as a benchmark for evaluating the Eclipse V‐parameter model. In most cases, the V‐parameter model correctly predicted the beam spot size after traversing the RS. However, Eclipse did not enforce the constraint for a nonnegative covariance matrix when fitting the spot sizes to derive the phase space parameters, which resulted in incorrect calculations under specific conditions. In addition, Eclipse v11 incorrectly imposed limits on the individual values of the phase space parameters, which could lead to incorrect spot size values in the air calculated for beams with spot sigmas <3.8 mm. Notably, the TPS supplier (Varian) and hardware vendor (Ion Beam Applications) inconsistently refer to the RS position, which may result in improper spot size calculations. PACS number(s): 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.55.kd, 87.56.‐vExisting proton therapy pencil-beam scanning (PBS) systems have limitations on the minimum range to which a patient can be treated. This limitation arises from practical considerations, such as beam current intensity, layer spacing, and delivery time. The range shifter (RS) - a slab of stopping material inserted between the nozzle and the patient - is used to reduce the residual range of the incident beam so that the treatment ranges can be extended to shallow depths. Accurate modeling of the RS allows one to calculate the beam spot size entering the patient, given the proton energy, for arbitrary positions and thicknesses of the RS in the beam path. The Eclipse version 11 (v11) treatment planning system (TPS) models RS-induced beam widening by incorporating the scattering properties of the RS material into the V-parameter. Monte Carlo simulations with Geant4 code and analytical calculations using the Fermi-Eyges (FE) theory with Highland approximation of multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) were employed to calculate proton beam widening due to scattering in the RS. We demonstrated that both methods achieved consistent results and could be used as a benchmark for evaluating the Eclipse V-parameter model. In most cases, the V-parameter model correctly predicted the beam spot size after traversing the RS. However, Eclipse did not enforce the constraint for a nonnegative covariance matrix when fitting the spot sizes to derive the phase space parameters, which resulted in incorrect calculations under specific conditions. In addition, Eclipse v11 incorrectly imposed limits on the individual values of the phase space parameters, which could lead to incorrect spot size values in the air calculated for beams with spot sigmas <3.8 mm. Notably, the TPS supplier (Varian) and hardware vendor (Ion Beam Applications) inconsistently refer to the RS position, which may result in improper spot size calculations. PACS number(s): 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.55.kd, 87.56.-v.

Development of a golden beam data set for the commissioning of a proton double‐scattering system in a pencil‐beam dose calculation algorithm

PURPOSE The purpose of this investigation is to determine if a single set of beam data, described by a minimal set of equations and fitting variables, can be used to commission different installations of a proton double-scattering system in a commercial pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm. METHODS The beam model parameters required to commission the pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm (virtual and effective SAD, effective source size, and pristine-peak energy spread) are determined for a commercial double-scattering system. These parameters are measured in a first room and parameterized as function of proton energy and nozzle settings by fitting four analytical equations to the measured data. The combination of these equations and fitting values constitutes the golden beam data (GBD). To determine the variation in dose delivery between installations, the same dosimetric properties are measured in two additional rooms at the same facility, as well as in a single room at another facility. The difference between the room-specific measurements and the GBD is evaluated against tolerances that guarantee the 3D dose distribution in each of the rooms matches the GBD-based dose distribution within clinically reasonable limits. The pencil-beam treatment-planning algorithm is commissioned with the GBD. The three-dimensional dose distribution in water is evaluated in the four treatment rooms and compared to the treatment-planning calculated dose distribution. RESULTS The virtual and effective SAD measurements fall between 226 and 257 cm. The effective source size varies between 2.4 and 6.2 cm for the large-field options, and 1.0 and 2.0 cm for the small-field options. The pristine-peak energy spread decreases from 1.05% at the lowest range to 0.6% at the highest. The virtual SAD as well as the effective source size can be accurately described by a linear relationship as function of the inverse of the residual energy. An additional linear correction term as function of RM-step thickness is required for accurate parameterization of the effective SAD. The GBD energy spread is given by a linear function of the exponential of the beam energy. Except for a few outliers, the measured parameters match the GBD within the specified tolerances in all of the four rooms investigated. For a SOBP field with a range of 15 g/cm2 and an air gap of 25 cm, the maximum difference in the 80%-20% lateral penumbra between the GBD-commissioned treatment-planning system and measurements in any of the four rooms is 0.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS The beam model parameters of the double-scattering system can be parameterized with a limited set of equations and parameters. This GBD closely matches the measured dosimetric properties in four different rooms.

TH‐D‐M100E‐05: Realistic Estimation of Proton Range Uncertainties and Dosimetric Implications

Purpose: This study aims to obtain a realistic estimate of proton range calculation uncertainties resulting from the calibration curve of CT‐number to protonstopping power conversion, which determines the accuracy of proton dose distribution prediction. Range in tissue is determined by integration of protonstopping power along its path, and uncertainties on the CTcalibration curve translate directly into ambiguities on the range. Uncertainties of calibration curves arise mainly from dependence of CT number on the size of imaged object. Method and materials: Materials used include an electron density phantom (CIRS) scanned on Brilliance CT (Philips) and irradiated on Proteus235 proton therapy system (IBA). The modular phantom can simulate a head, a medium and a large body and houses inserts made off 13 tissue substitutes. Hounsfield numbers were measured for different phantom configurations. Mean value and standard deviation established for each insert over all configurations were used to generate three calibration curves. Insert material stopping powers were measured and calculated. All curves were applied to patient data and resulted to three proton ranges from the skin to PTV distal edge. Results:CT number uncertainties were found to increase with physical density, from 3 CT numbers standard deviation for lung (0.5g/cm3) to 140 for dense bone (1.8g/cm3). Range uncertainties for different patients, treatment sites and field orientations vary from 1.5 to 2.4% or 1.6 to 4.5mm. Modulation uncertainties, for every case were less than 1mm and depended on bone in the PTV. Conclusion: Range uncertainties due to CT number variability as a result of beam hardening artifacts are significant for tumor local control as well as sparing of neighboring critical structures. Future work includes patient size specific curves that will reduce the range uncertainty.