L. Widesott

Systematic evaluation of three different commercial software solutions for automatic segmentation for adaptive therapy in head-and-neck, prostate and pleural cancer

PurposeTo validate, in the context of adaptive radiotherapy, three commercial software solutions for atlas-based segmentation.Methods and materialsFifteen patients, five for each group, with cancer of the Head&Neck, pleura, and prostate were enrolled in the study. In addition to the treatment planning CT (pCT) images, one replanning CT (rCT) image set was acquired for each patient during the RT course. Three experienced physicians outlined on the pCT and rCT all the volumes of interest (VOIs). We used three software solutions (VelocityAI 2.6.2 (V), MIM 5.1.1 (M) by MIMVista and ABAS 2.0 (A) by CMS-Elekta) to generate the automatic contouring on the repeated CT. All the VOIs obtained with automatic contouring (AC) were successively corrected manually. We recorded the time needed for: 1) ex novo ROIs definition on rCT; 2) generation of AC by the three software solutions; 3) manual correction of AC.To compare the quality of the volumes obtained automatically by the software and manually corrected with those drawn from scratch on rCT, we used the following indexes: overlap coefficient (DICE), sensitivity, inclusiveness index, difference in volume, and displacement differences on three axes (x, y, z) from the isocenter.ResultsThe time saved by the three software solutions for all the sites, compared to the manual contouring from scratch, is statistically significant and similar for all the three software solutions. The time saved for each site are as follows: about an hour for Head&Neck, about 40 minutes for prostate, and about 20 minutes for mesothelioma. The best DICE similarity coefficient index was obtained with the manual correction for: A (contours for prostate), A and M (contours for H&N), and M (contours for mesothelioma).ConclusionsFrom a clinical point of view, the automated contouring workflow was shown to be significantly shorter than the manual contouring process, even though manual correction of the VOIs is always needed.

Proton therapy in lung cancer: Clinical outcomes and technical issues. A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To determine whether, according to the currently available literature, proton therapy (PT) has a role in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to assess its safety and efficacy and to evaluate the main technical issues specifically related to this treatment technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS During March 2007, two independent researchers conducted a systematic review of the current data on the treatment of NSCLC with PT. RESULTS In total, 113 reports were retrieved, 17 of which were included in the analysis. There were no prospective trials (randomized or non-randomized). Nine uncontrolled single-arm studies were available from three PT centers, providing clinical outcomes for 214 patients in total. These reports were mainly related to stage I-II tumors, with results comparable to those obtained with surgery, without significant toxicity. In addition, two papers were found that compared photon and proton dose distributions, which showed a potential for dose escalation and/or a sparing of the organ at risk with PT. Finally, six studies analyzed dosimetric and technical issues related with PT, mainly underlining the difficulties in designing dose distributions that are representative of the dose actually delivered during treatment. CONCLUSIONS Although from a physical point of view PT is a good option for the treatment of NSCLC, limited data are available on its application in the clinical practice. Furthermore, the application of PT to lung cancer does present technical challenges. Because of the small number of institutions involved in the treatment of this disease, number of patients, and methodological weaknesses of the trials it is therefore not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the superiority of PT with respect to the photon techniques currently available for the treatment of NSCLC.

Helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated proton therapy for whole pelvis irradiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients: dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability, and generalized equivalent uniform dose analysis.

PURPOSE To compare intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) treatment plans for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS The plans of 8 patients with HRPCa treated with HT were compared with IMPT plans with two quasilateral fields set up (-100°; 100°) and optimized with the Hyperion treatment planning system. Both techniques were optimized to simultaneously deliver 74.2 Gy/Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) in 28 fractions on planning target volumes (PTVs)3-4 (P + proximal seminal vesicles), 65.5 Gy/Gy(RBE) on PTV2 (distal seminal vesicles and rectum/prostate overlapping), and 51.8 Gy/Gy(RBE) to PTV1 (pelvic lymph nodes). Normal tissue calculation probability (NTCP) calculations were performed for the rectum, and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was estimated for the bowel cavity, penile bulb and bladder. RESULTS A slightly better PTV coverage and homogeneity of target dose distribution with IMPT was found: the percentage of PTV volume receiving ≥ 95% of the prescribed dose (V(95%)) was on average > 97% in HT and > 99% in IMPT. The conformity indexes were significantly lower for protons than for photons, and there was a statistically significant reduction of the IMPT dosimetric parameters, up to 50 Gy/Gy(RBE) for the rectum and bowel and 60 Gy/Gy(RBE) for the bladder. The NTCP values for the rectum were higher in HT for all the sets of parameters, but the gain was small and in only a few cases statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Comparable PTV coverage was observed. Based on NTCP calculation, IMPT is expected to allow a small reduction in rectal toxicity, and a significant dosimetric gain with IMPT, both in medium-dose and in low-dose range in all OARs, was observed.

Helical tomotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: A treatment planning comparison

PURPOSE To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) on early stage prostate cancer treatments delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in moderate hypofractionation. MATERIAL/METHODS Eight patients treated with HT were replanned with two-field IMPT (2fIMPT) and five-field IMPT (5fIMPT), using a small pencil beam size (3 mm sigma). The prescribed dose was 74.3 Gy in 28 fractions on PTV1 (prostate) and PTV2 (proximal seminal vesicles), 65.5 Gy on PTV3 (distal seminal vesicles) and on the overlap between rectum and PTVs. RESULTS IMPT and HT achieved similar target coverage and dose homogeneity, with 5fIMPT providing the best results. The conformity indexes of IMPT were significantly lower for PTV1+2 and PTV3. Above 65 Gy, HT and IMPT were equivalent in the rectum, while IMPT spared the bladder and the penile bulb from 0 to 70 Gy. From 0 up to 60 Gy, IMPT dosimetric values were (much) lower for all OARs except the femur heads, where HT was better than 2fIMPT in the 25-35 Gy dose range. OARs mean doses were typically reduced by 30-50% by IMPT. NTCPs for the rectum were within 1% between the two techniques, except when the endpoint was stool frequency, where IMPT showed a small (though statistically significant) benefit. CONCLUSIONS HT and IMPT produce similar dose distributions in the target volume. The current knowledge on dose-effect relations does not allow to quantify the clinical impact of the large sparing of IMPT at medium-to-low doses.

Is there a role for proton therapy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review

This paper aimed to review the literature concerning the use of proton therapy systematically in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, focusing on clinical results and technical issues. The literature search was conducted according to a specific protocol in the Medline and Scopus databases by two independent researchers covering the period of 1990-2012. Both clinical and technical studies referring to a population of patients actually treated with protons were included. The PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews were followed. A final set of 16 studies from seven proton therapy institutions worldwide were selected from an initial dataset of 324 reports. Seven clinical studies, five reports on technical issues, three studies on treatment related toxicity and one paper reporting both clinical results and toxicity analysis were retrieved. Four studies were not published as full papers. Passive scattering was the most adopted delivery technique. More than 900 patients with heterogeneous stages of disease were treated with various fractionation schedules. Only one prospective full paper was found. Local control was approximately 80% at 3-5years, average overall survival at 5years was 32%, with data comparable to surgery in the most favorable groups. Toxicity was low (mainly gastrointestinal). Normal liver V0Gy<30%volume and V30Gy<18-25%volume were suggested as cut-off values for hepatic toxicity. The good clinical results of the selected papers are counterbalanced by a low level of evidence. However, the rationale to enroll patients in prospective studies appears to be strong.

Characterization and validation of a Monte Carlo code for independent dose calculation in proton therapy treatments with pencil beam scanning.

We propose a method of creating and validating a Monte Carlo (MC) model of a proton Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) machine using only commissioning measurements and avoiding the nozzle modeling. Measurements with a scintillating screen coupled with a CCD camera, ionization chamber and a Faraday Cup were used to model the beam in TOPAS without using any machine parameter information but the virtual source distance from the isocenter. Then the model was validated on simple Spread Out Bragg Peaks (SOBP) delivered in water phantom and with six realistic clinical plans (many involving 3 or more fields) on an anthropomorphic phantom. In particular the behavior of the moveable Range Shifter (RS) feature was investigated and its modeling has been proposed. The gamma analysis (3%,3 mm) was used to compare MC, TPS (XiO-ELEKTA) and measured 2D dose distributions (using radiochromic film). The MC modeling proposed here shows good results in the validation phase, both for simple irradiation geometry (SOBP in water) and for modulated treatment fields (on anthropomorphic phantoms). In particular head lesions were investigated and both MC and TPS data were compared with measurements. Treatment plans with no RS always showed a very good agreement with both of them (γ-Passing Rate (PR)  >  95%). Treatment plans in which the RS was needed were also tested and validated. For these treatment plans MC results showed better agreement with measurements (γ-PR  >  93%) than the one coming from TPS (γ-PR  <  88%). This work shows how to simplify the MC modeling of a PBS machine for proton therapy treatments without accounting for any hardware components and proposes a more reliable RS modeling than the one implemented in our TPS. The validation process has shown how this code is a valid candidate for a completely independent treatment plan dose calculation algorithm. This makes the code an important future tool for the patient specific QA verification process.

In-gantry or remote patient positioning? Monte Carlo simulations for proton therapy centers of different sizes

PURPOSE We estimated the potential advantage of remote positioning (RP) vs. in-room positioning (IP) for a proton therapy facility in terms of patient throughput. MATERIALS AND METHODS Monte Carlo simulations of facilities with one, two or three gantries were performed. A sensitivity analysis was applied by varying the imaging and setup correction system (ICS), the speed of transporters (for RP) and beam switching time. Possible advantages of using three couches (for RP) or of switching the beam between fields was also investigated. RESULTS For a single gantry facility, an average of 20% more patients could be treated using RP: ranging from +45%, if a fast transporter and slow ICS were simulated, to -14% if a slow transporter and fast ICS was simulated. For two gantries, about 10% more patients could be treated with RP, ranging from +32% (fast transporter, slow ICS) to -12% (slow transporter, fast ICS). The ability to switch beam between fields did not substantially influence the throughput. In addition, the use of three transporters showed increased delays and therefore a slight reduction of the fractions executables. For three gantries, RP and IP showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS The advantage of RP vs. IP strongly depends on ICS and the speed of the transporters. For RP to be advantageous, reduced transport times are required. The advantage of RP decreases with increasing number of gantries.

Supine craniospinal irradiation in pediatric patients by proton pencil beam scanning

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Proton therapy is the emerging treatment modality for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in pediatric patients. Herein, special methods adopted for CSI at proton Therapy Center of Trento by pencil beam scanning (PBS) are comprehensively described. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twelve pediatric patients were treated by proton PBS using two/three isocenters. Special methods refer to: (i) patient positioning in supine position on immobilization devices crossed by the beams; (ii) planning field-junctions via the ancillary-beam technique; (iii) achieving lens-sparing by three-beams whole-brain-irradiation; (iv) applying a movable-snout and beam-splitting technique to reduce the lateral penumbra. Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) program was performed using two-dimensional ion chamber array and γ-analysis. Daily kilovoltage alignment was performed. RESULTS PBS allowed to obtain optimal target coverage (mean D98%>98%) with reduced dose to organs-at-risk. Lens sparing was obtained (mean D1∼730cGyE). Reducing lateral penumbra decreased the dose to the kidneys (mean Dmean<600cGyE). After kilovoltage alignment, potential dose deviations in the upper and lower junctions were small (average 0.8% and 1.2% respectively). Due to imperfect modeling of range shifter, QA showed better agreements between measurements and calculations at depths >4cm (mean γ>95%) than at depths<4cm. CONCLUSIONS The reported methods allowed to effectively perform proton PBS CSI.

Improvements in pencil beam scanning proton therapy dose calculation accuracy in brain tumor cases with a commercial Monte Carlo algorithm

A commercial Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm (RayStation version 6.0.024) for the treatment of brain tumors with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy is validated and compared via measurements and analytical calculations in clinically realistic scenarios. For the measurements a 2D ion chamber array detector (MatriXX PT) was placed underneath the following targets: (1) an anthropomorphic head phantom (with two different thicknesses) and (2) a biological sample (i.e. half a lambs head). In addition, we compared the MC dose engine versus the RayStation pencil beam (PB) algorithm clinically implemented so far, in critical conditions such as superficial targets (i.e. in need of a range shifter (RS)), different air gaps, and gantry angles to simulate both orthogonal and tangential beam arrangements. For every plan the PB and MC dose calculations were compared to measurements using a gamma analysis metrics (3%, 3 mm). For the head phantom the gamma passing rate (GPR) was always  >96% and on average  >99% for the MC algorithm; the PB algorithm had a GPR of  ⩽90% for all the delivery configurations with a single slab (apart 95% GPR from the gantry of 0° and small air gap) and in the case of two slabs of the head phantom the GPR was  >95% only in the case of small air gaps for all three (0°, 45°, and 70°) simulated beam gantry angles. Overall the PB algorithm tends to overestimate the dose to the target (up to 25%) and underestimate the dose to the organ at risk (up to 30%). We found similar results (but a bit worse for the PB algorithm) for the two targets of the lambs head where only two beam gantry angles were simulated. Our results suggest that in PBS proton therapy a range shifter (RS) needs to be used with caution when planning a treatment with an analytical algorithm due to potentially great discrepancies between the planned dose and the dose delivered to the patient, including in the case of brain tumors where this issue could be underestimated. Our results also suggest that a MC evaluation of the dose has to be performed every time the RS is used and, mostly, when it is used with large air gaps and beam directions tangential to the patient surface.

Clinical Pencil Beam Scanning: Present and Future Practices

Pencil beam scanning (PBS) is the most advanced beam delivery technology in particle therapy nowadays. After a pioneering phase, PBS is rapidly becoming available on a larger scale worlwide, and is expected to be the standard beam delivery technique in the future to come. The characterization of a PBS isocentric gantry involves a number of validation tests both at the hardware level (e.g. mechanical isocentricity of gantry and patient positioning system) and at the beam geometry level (e.g. spot size, shape and positional accuracy as a function of gantry angle and energy). A beam model is then generated in the treatment planning systems (TPS), and an extensive validation is needed, from simple geometries to heterogenous phantoms mimicking a patient. Last but not least, planning techniques ensuring plan robustness with respect to setup error and range uncertainties should be implemented in order to minimize the difference between planned and delivered dose distribution.