Gary Larson

Dosimetric study of uniform scanning proton therapy planning for prostate cancer patients with a metal hip prosthesis, and comparison with volumetric-modulated arc therapy

The main purposes of this study were to 1) investigate the dosimetric quality of uniform scanning proton therapy planning (USPT) for prostate cancer patients with a metal hip prosthesis, and 2) compare the dosimetric results of USPT with that of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Proton plans for prostate cancer (four cases) were generated in XiO treatment planning system (TPS). The beam arrangement in each proton plan consisted of three fields (two oblique fields and one lateral or slightly angled field), and the proton beams passing through a metal hip prosthesis was avoided. Dose calculations in proton plans were performed using the pencil beam algorithm. From each proton plan, planning target volume (PTV) coverage value (i.e., relative volume of the PTV receiving the prescription dose of 79.2 CGE) was recorded. The VMAT prostate planning was done using two arcs in the Eclipse TPS utilizing 6 MV X‐rays, and beam entrance through metallic hip prosthesis was avoided. Dose computation in the VMAT plans was done using anisotropic analytical algorithm, and calculated VMAT plans were then normalized such that the PTV coverage in the VMAT plan was the same as in the proton plan of the corresponding case. The dose‐volume histograms of calculated treatment plans were used to evaluate the dosimetric quality of USPT and VMAT. In comparison to the proton plans, on average, the maximum and mean doses to the PTV were higher in the VMAT plans by 1.4% and 0.5%, respectively, whereas the minimum PTV dose was lower in the VMAT plans by 3.4%. The proton plans had lower (or better) average homogeneity index (HI) of 0.03 compared to the one for VMAT (HI = 0.04). The relative rectal volume exposed to radiation was lower in the proton plan, with an average absolute difference ranging from 0.1% to 32.6%. In contrast, using proton planning, the relative bladder volume exposed to radiation was higher at high‐dose region with an average absolute difference ranging from 0.4% to 0.8%, and lower at low‐ and medium‐dose regions with an average absolute difference ranging from 2.7% to 10.1%. The average mean dose to the rectum and bladder was lower in the proton plans by 45.1% and 22.0%, respectively, whereas the mean dose to femoral head was lower in VMAT plans by an average difference of 79.6%. In comparison to the VMAT, the proton planning produced lower equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the rectum (43.7 CGE vs. 51.4 Gy) and higher EUD for the femoral head (16.7 CGE vs. 9.5 Gy), whereas both the VMAT and proton planning produced comparable EUDs for the prostate tumor (76.2 CGE vs. 76.8 Gy) and bladder (50.3 CGE vs. 51.1 Gy). The results presented in this study show that the combination of lateral and oblique fields in USPT planning could potentially provide dosimetric advantage over the VMAT for prostate cancer involving a metallic hip prosthesis. PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.ne, 87.55.dk

Proton therapy vs. VMAT for prostate cancer: a treatment planning study

Abstract Purpose: The main objective of this study was to compare the dosimetric quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with that of proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Patients and Materials: Twelve patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously treated with uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT) were included in this study. Proton planning was done using the XiO treatment planning system (TPS) with two 1800 parallel-opposed lateral fields. The VMAT planning was done using the RapidArc technique with two arcs in the Eclipse TPS. The VMAT and proton plans were calculated using the anisotropic analytical algorithm and pencil-beam algorithm, respectively. The calculated VMAT and proton plans were then normalized so that at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. The dosimetric evaluation was performed by comparing the physical dose-volume parameters, which were obtained from the VMAT and proton plans. Results: The average difference in the PTV ...

Anterior-oriented proton beams for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional experience.

Abstract Background. Proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer generally involves the use of two lateral beams that transverse the hips. In patients with hip replacements or a previously irradiated hip, this arrangement is contraindicated. The use of non-lateral beams is possible, but not well described. Here we report a multi-institutional experience for patients treated with at least one non-lateral proton beam for prostate cancer. Material and methods. Between 2010 and 2014, 20 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer and a history of hip prosthesis underwent proton therapy utilizing at least one anterior oblique beam (defined as between 10° and 85° from vertical) at one of three proton centers. Results. The median follow-up was 6.4 months. No patients have developed PSA failure or distant metastases. The median planning target volume (PTV) D95 was 79.2 Gy (RBE) (range 69.7–79.9). The median rectal V70 was 9.2% (2.5–15.4). The median bladder V50, V80, and mean dose were 12.4% (3.7–27.1), 3.5 cm3 (0–7.1), and 14.9 Gy (RBE) (4.6–37.8), respectively. The median contralateral femur head V45 and max dose were 0.01 cm3 (0–16.6) and 43.7 Gy (RBE) (15.6–52.5), respectively. The incidence of acute Grade 2 urinary toxicity was 40%. There were no Grade ≥ 3 urinary toxicities. There was one patient who developed late Grade 2 rectal proctitis, with no other cases of acute or late ≥ Grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity. Grade 2 erectile dysfunction occurred in two patients (11.1%). Mild hip pain was experienced by five patients (25%). There were no cases of hip fracture. Conclusion. PBT for prostate cancer utilizing anterior oblique beam trajectories is feasible with favorable dosimetry and acceptable toxicity. Further follow-up is needed to assess for long-term outcomes and toxicities.

Proton therapy patterns-of-care and early outcomes for Hodgkin lymphoma: results from the Proton Collaborative Group Registry.

Bradford S. Hoppe, Henry Tsai, Gary Larson, George E. Laramore, Carlos Vargas, Yolanda D. Tseng, Megan Dunn, Lisa McGee, Oren Cahlon and William Hartsell University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Procure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey, USA; Procure Proton Therapy Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA; Chicago Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois, USA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York, USA

Image-guided hypofractionated proton beam therapy for low-risk prostate cancer: Analysis of quality of life and toxicity, PCG GU 002.

AIM This interim analysis evaluated changes in quality of life (QOL), American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA), or adverse events (AEs) among prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionation. BACKGROUND Results for hypofractionated prostate cancer with photon therapy are encouraging. No prior trial addresses the role of proton therapy in this clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-nine patients with low-risk prostate cancer received 38-Gy relative biologic effectiveness in 5 treatments. They received proton therapy at 2 fields a day, magnetic resonance imaging registration, rectal balloon, and fiducial markers for guidance pre-beam. We evaluated AEs, Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) domains, and AUA at pretreatment and at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. An AUA change >5 points and QOL change of half a standard deviation (SD) defined clinical significance. RESULTS Median follow-up was 18 months; 17 patients reached follow-up of ≥24 months. For urinary function, statistically and clinically significant change was not seen (maximum change, 3). EPIC urinary QOL scores did not show statistically and clinically significant change at any end point (maximum, 0.45 SD). EPIC bowel QOL scores showed small but statistically and clinically significant change at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months (SD range, 0.52-0.62). EPIC sexual scores showed small but statistically and clinically significant change at 24 months (SD, 0.52). No AE grade ≥3 was seen. CONCLUSIONS Patients treated with hypofractionated proton therapy tolerated treatment well, with excellent QOL scores, persistently low AUA, and no AE grade ≥3.

Dosimetric and radiobiological impact of intensity modulated proton therapy and RapidArc planning for high-risk prostate cancer with seminal vesicles

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric and radiobiological impact of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and RapidArc planning for high‐risk prostate cancer with seminal vesicles.

Minimal toxicity after proton beam therapy for prostate and pelvic nodal irradiation: results from the proton collaborative group REG001-09 trial

Abstract Background: Proton beam therapy (PBT) reduces normal organ dose compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMXT) for prostate cancer patients who receive pelvic radiation therapy. It is not known whether this dosimetric advantage results in less gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity than would be expected from IMXT. Material and methods: We evaluated treatment parameters and toxicity outcomes for non-metastatic prostate cancer patients who received pelvic radiation therapy and enrolled on the PCG REG001-09 trial. Patients who received X-ray therapy and/or brachytherapy were excluded. Of 3210 total enrolled prostate cancer patients, 85 received prostate and pelvic radiation therapy exclusively with PBT. Most had clinically and radiographically negative lymph nodes although 6 had pelvic nodal disease and one also had para-aortic involvement. Pelvic radiation therapy was delivered using either 2 fields (opposed laterals) or 3 fields (opposed laterals and a posterior beam). Median pelvic dose was 46.9 GyE (range 39.7–56) in 25 fractions (range 24–30). Median boost dose to the prostate +/− seminal vesicles was 30 GyE (range 20–41.4) in 16 fractions (range 10–24). Results: Median follow-up was 14.5 months (range 2.8–49.2). Acute grade 1, 2, and 3 GI toxicity rates were 16.4, 2.4, 0%, respectively. Acute grade 1, 2, and 3 GU toxicity rates were 60, 34.1, 0%, respectively. Conclusions: Prostate cancer patients who receive pelvic radiation therapy using PBT experience significantly less acute GI toxicity than is expected using IMXT. Further investigation is warranted to confirm whether this favorable acute GI toxicity profile is related to small bowel sparing from PBT.

Dosimetric impact of number of treatment fields in uniform scanning proton therapy planning of lung cancer

The main purpose of this study was to perform a treatment planning study for lung cancer comparing 2-field (2F) versus 3-field (3F) techniques in uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT). Ten clinically approved lung cancer treatment plans delivered using USPT at our proton center were included in this retrospective study. All 10 lung cases included 4D computed tomography (CT) simulation. The delineation of target volumes was done based on the maximum intensity projection (MIP) images. Both the 3F and 2F treatment plans were generated for the total dose of 74 cobalt-gray-equivalent (CGE) with a daily dose of 2 CGE. 3F plan was generated by adding an extra beam in the 2F plan. Various dosimetric parameters between 2F and 3F plans were evaluated. 3F plans produced better target coverage and conformality as well as lower mean dose to the lung, with absolute difference between 3F and 2F plans within 2%. In contrast, the addition of third beam led to increase of low-dose regions (V20 and V5) in the lung in 3F plans compared to the ones in 2F plans with absolute difference within 2%. Maximum dose to the spinal cord was lower in 2F plans. Mean dose to the heart and esophagus were comparable in both 3F and 2F plans. In conclusion, the 3F technique in USPT produced better target coverage and conformality, but increased the low-dose regions in the lung when compared to 2F technique.

Initial toxicity, quality-of-life outcomes, and dosimetric impact in a randomized phase 3 trial of hypofractionated versus standard fractionated proton therapy for low-risk prostate cancer

Purpose Randomized evidence for extreme hypofractionation in prostate cancer is lacking. We aimed to identify differences in toxicity and quality-of-life outcomes between standard fractionation and extreme hypofractionated radiation in a phase 3 randomized trial. Methods and materials We analyzed the results of the first 75 patients in our phase 3 trial, comparing 38 Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) in 5 fractions (n = 46) versus 79.2 Gy RBE in 44 fractions (n = 29). Patients received proton radiation using fiducials and daily image guidance. We evaluated American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI), adverse events (AEs), and Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) domains. The primary endpoint of this interim analysis was the cumulative incidence of grade 2 (G2) or higher AEs. The randomized patient allocation scheme was a 2:1 ratio favoring the 38 Gy RBE arm. Results The median follow-up was 36 months; 30% of patients reached 48-month follow-up. AUASI scores differed <5 points (4.4 vs 8.6; P = .002) at 1 year, favoring the 79.2 Gy arm. Differences in AUASI were not significant at ≥18 months. EPIC urinary symptoms favored the 79.2 Gy arm at 1 year (92.3 vs 84.5; P = .009) and 18 months (92.3 vs 85.3; P = .03); bother scores were not significant at other time points. Cumulative ≥G2 genitourinary toxicity was similar between the 79.2 Gy and 38 Gy arms (34.5% vs 30.4%; P = .80). We found no differences in the EPIC domains of bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, or bowel ≥G2 toxicities. Bladder V80 (79.2 Gy arm; P = .04) and V39 (38 Gy arm; P = .05) were predictive for cumulative G2 genitourinary AEs. Conclusions Low AE rates were seen in both study arms. Early temporary differences in genitourinary scores disappeared over time. Bladder constraints were associated with genitourinary AEs.