M. Moteabbed

Monte Carlo patient study on the comparison of prompt gamma and PET imaging for range verification in proton therapy

The purpose of this work was to compare the clinical adaptation of prompt gamma (PG) imaging and positron emission tomography (PET) as independent tools for non-invasive proton beam range verification and treatment validation. The PG range correlation and its differences with PET have been modeled for the first time in a highly heterogeneous tissue environment, using different field sizes and configurations. Four patients with different tumor locations (head and neck, prostate, spine and abdomen) were chosen to compare the site-specific behaviors of the PG and PET images, using both passive scattered and pencil beam fields. Accurate reconstruction of dose, PG and PET distributions was achieved by using the planning computed tomography (CT) image in a validated GEANT4-based Monte Carlo code capable of modeling the treatment nozzle and patient anatomy in detail. The physical and biological washout phenomenon and decay half-lives for PET activity for the most abundant isotopes such as (11)C, (15)O, (13)N, (30)P and (38)K were taken into account in the data analysis. The attenuation of the gamma signal after traversing the patient geometry and respective detection efficiencies were estimated for both methods to ensure proper comparison. The projected dose, PG and PET profiles along many lines in the beam direction were analyzed to investigate the correlation consistency across the beam width. For all subjects, the PG method showed on average approximately 10 times higher gamma production rates than the PET method before, and 60 to 80 times higher production after including the washout correction and acquisition time delay. This rate strongly depended on tissue density and elemental composition. For broad passive scattered fields, it was demonstrated that large differences exist between PG and PET signal falloff positions and the correlation with the dose distribution for different lines in the beam direction. These variations also depended on the treatment site and the particular subject. Thus, similar to PET, direct range verification with PG in passive scattering is not easily viable. However, upon development of an optimized 3D PG detector, indirect range verification by comparing measured and simulated PG distributions (currently being explored for the PET method) would be more beneficial because it can avoid the inherent biological challenges of the PET imaging. The improved correlation of PG and PET with dose when using pencil beams was evident. PG imaging was found to be potentially advantageous especially for small tumors in the presence of high tissue heterogeneities. Including the effects of detector acceptance and efficiency may hold PET superior in terms of the amplitude of the detected signal (depending on the future development of PG detection technology), but the ability to perform online measurements and avoid signal disintegration (due to washout) with PG are important factors that can outweigh the benefits of higher detection sensitivity.

Assessment of radiation-induced second cancer risks in proton therapy and IMRT for organs inside the primary radiation field

There is clinical evidence that second malignancies in radiation therapy occur mainly within the beam path, i.e. in the medium or high-dose region. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk for developing a radiation-induced tumor within the treated volume and to compare this risk for proton therapy and intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT). Instead of using data for specific patients we have created a representative scenario. Fully contoured age- and gender-specific whole body phantoms (4 year and 14 year old) were uploaded into a treatment planning system and tumor volumes were contoured based on patients treated for optic glioma and vertebral body Ewings sarcoma. Treatment plans for IMRT and proton therapy treatments were generated. Lifetime attributable risks (LARs) for developing a second malignancy were calculated using a risk model considering cell kill, mutation, repopulation, as well as inhomogeneous organ doses. For standard fractionation schemes, the LAR for developing a second malignancy from radiation therapy alone was found to be up to 2.7% for a 4 year old optic glioma patient treated with IMRT considering a soft-tissue carcinoma risk model only. Sarcoma risks were found to be below 1% in all cases. For a 14 year old, risks were found to be about a factor of 2 lower. For Ewings sarcoma cases the risks based on a sarcoma model were typically higher than the carcinoma risks, i.e. LAR up to 1.3% for soft-tissue sarcoma. In all cases, the risk from proton therapy turned out to be lower by at least a factor of 2 and up to a factor of 10. This is mainly due to lower total energy deposited in the patient when using proton beams. However, the comparison of a three-field and four-field proton plan also shows that the distribution of the dose, i.e. the particular treatment plan, plays a role. When using different fractionation schemes, the estimated risks roughly scale with the total dose difference in%. In conclusion, proton therapy can significantly reduce the risk for developing an in-field second malignancy. The risk depends on treatment planning parameters, i.e. an analysis based on our formalism could be applied within treatment planning programs to guide treatment plans for pediatric patients.

The risk of radiation-induced second cancers in the high to medium dose region: a comparison between passive and scanned proton therapy, IMRT and VMAT for pediatric patients with brain tumors

The incidence of second malignant tumors is a clinically observed adverse late effect of radiation therapy, especially in organs close to the treatment site, receiving medium to high doses (>2.5 Gy). For pediatric patients, choosing the least toxic radiation modality is of utmost importance, due to their high radiosensitivity and small size. This study aims to evaluate the risk of second cancer incidence in the vicinity of the primary radiation field, for pediatric patients with brain/head and neck tumors and compare four treatment modalities: passive scattering and pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PPT and PBS), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). For a cohort of six pediatric patients originally treated with PPT, additional PBS, IMRT and VMAT plans were created. Dose distributions from these plans were used to calculate the excess absolute risk (EAR) and lifetime attributable risk (LAR) for developing a second tumor in soft tissue and skull. A widely used risk assessment formalism was employed and compared with a linear model based on recent clinical findings. In general, LAR was found to range between 0.01%-2.8% for PPT/PBS and 0.04%-4.9% for IMRT/VMAT. PBS was associated with the lowest risk for most patients using carcinoma and sarcoma models, whereas IMRT and VMAT risks were comparable and the highest among all modalities. The LAR for IMRT/VMAT relative to PPT ranged from 1.3-4.6 for soft tissue and from 3.5-9.5 for skull. Larger absolute LAR was observed for younger patients and using linear risk models. The number of fields used in proton therapy and IMRT had minimal effect on the risk. When planning treatments and deciding on the treatment modality, the probability of second cancer incidence should be carefully examined and weighed against the possibility of developing acute side effects for each patient individually.

A dosimetric comparison of proton and intensity modulated radiation therapy in pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma patients enrolled on a prospective phase II proton study

BACKGROUND Pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is highly curable, however, cure may come with significant radiation related toxicity in developing tissues. Proton therapy (PT) can spare excess dose to normal structures, potentially reducing the incidence of adverse effects. METHODS Between 2005 and 2012, 54 patients were enrolled on a prospective multi-institutional phase II trial using PT in pediatric RMS. As part of the protocol, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were generated for comparison with clinical PT plans. RESULTS Target coverage was comparable between PT and IMRT plans with a mean CTV V95 of 100% for both modalities (p=0.82). However, mean integral dose was 1.8 times higher for IMRT (range 1.0-4.9). By site, mean integral dose for IMRT was 1.8 times higher for H&N (p<0.01) and GU (p=0.02), 2.0 times higher for trunk/extremity (p<0.01), and 3.5 times higher for orbit (p<0.01) compared to PT. Significant sparing was seen with PT in 26 of 30 critical structures assessed for orbital, head and neck, pelvic, and trunk/extremity patients. CONCLUSIONS Proton radiation lowers integral dose and improves normal tissue sparing when compared to IMRT for pediatric RMS. Correlation with clinical outcomes is necessary once mature long-term toxicity data are available.

Assessing the Clinical Impact of Approximations in Analytical Dose Calculations for Proton Therapy

PURPOSE To assess the impact of approximations in current analytical dose calculation methods (ADCs) on tumor control probability (TCP) in proton therapy. METHODS Dose distributions planned with ADC were compared with delivered dose distributions as determined by Monte Carlo simulations. A total of 50 patients were investigated in this analysis with 10 patients per site for 5 treatment sites (head and neck, lung, breast, prostate, liver). Differences were evaluated using dosimetric indices based on a dose-volume histogram analysis, a γ-index analysis, and estimations of TCP. RESULTS We found that ADC overestimated the target doses on average by 1% to 2% for all patients considered. The mean dose, D95, D50, and D02 (the dose value covering 95%, 50% and 2% of the target volume, respectively) were predicted within 5% of the delivered dose. The γ-index passing rate for target volumes was above 96% for a 3%/3 mm criterion. Differences in TCP were up to 2%, 2.5%, 6%, 6.5%, and 11% for liver and breast, prostate, head and neck, and lung patients, respectively. Differences in normal tissue complication probabilities for bladder and anterior rectum of prostate patients were less than 3%. CONCLUSION Our results indicate that current dose calculation algorithms lead to underdosage of the target by as much as 5%, resulting in differences in TCP of up to 11%. To ensure full target coverage, advanced dose calculation methods like Monte Carlo simulations may be necessary in proton therapy. Monte Carlo simulations may also be required to avoid biases resulting from systematic discrepancies in calculated dose distributions for clinical trials comparing proton therapy with conventional radiation therapy.

Validation of a deformable image registration technique for cone beam CT-based dose verification

PURPOSE As radiation therapy evolves toward more adaptive techniques, image guidance plays an increasingly important role, not only in patient setup but also in monitoring the delivered dose and adapting the treatment to patient changes. This study aimed to validate a method for evaluation of delivered intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dose based on multimodal deformable image registration (dir) for prostate treatments. METHODS A pelvic phantom was scanned with CT and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Both images were digitally deformed using two realistic patient-based deformation fields. The original CT was then registered to the deformed CBCT resulting in a secondary deformed CT. The registration quality was assessed as the ability of the dir method to recover the artificially induced deformations. The primary and secondary deformed CT images as well as vector fields were compared to evaluate the efficacy of the registration method and its suitability to be used for dose calculation. plastimatch, a free and open source software was used for deformable image registration. A B-spline algorithm with optimized parameters was used to achieve the best registration quality. Geometric image evaluation was performed through voxel-based Hounsfield unit (HU) and vector field comparison. For dosimetric evaluation, IMRT treatment plans were created and optimized on the original CT image and recomputed on the two warped images to be compared. The dose volume histograms were compared for the warped structures that were identical in both warped images. This procedure was repeated for the phantom with full, half full, and empty bladder. RESULTS The results indicated mean HU differences of up to 120 between registered and ground-truth deformed CT images. However, when the CBCT intensities were calibrated using a region of interest (ROI)-based calibration curve, these differences were reduced by up to 60%. Similarly, the mean differences in average vector field lengths decreased from 10.1 to 2.5 mm when CBCT was calibrated prior to registration. The results showed no dependence on the level of bladder filling. In comparison with the dose calculated on the primary deformed CT, differences in mean dose averaged over all organs were 0.2% and 3.9% for dose calculated on the secondary deformed CT with and without CBCT calibration, respectively, and 0.5% for dose calculated directly on the calibrated CBCT, for the full-bladder scenario. Gamma analysis for the distance to agreement of 2 mm and 2% of prescribed dose indicated a pass rate of 100% for both cases involving calibrated CBCT and on average 86% without CBCT calibration. CONCLUSIONS Using deformable registration on the planning CT images to evaluate the IMRT dose based on daily CBCTs was found feasible. The proposed method will provide an accurate dose distribution using planning CT and pretreatment CBCT data, avoiding the additional uncertainties introduced by CBCT inhomogeneity and artifacts. This is a necessary initial step toward future image-guided adaptive radiotherapy of the prostate.

Adjuvant radiation therapy for early stage seminoma: Proton versus photon planning comparison and modeling of second cancer risk

PURPOSE Given concerns of excess malignancies following adjuvant radiation for seminoma, we evaluated photon and proton beam therapy (PBT) treatment plans to assess dose distributions to organs at risk and model rates of second cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ten stage I seminoma patients who were treated with conventional para-aortic AP-PA photon radiation to 25.5 Gy at Massachusetts General Hospital had PBT plans generated (AP-PA, PA alone). Dose differences to critical organs were examined. Risks of second primary malignancies were calculated. RESULTS PBT plans were superior to photons in limiting dose to organs at risk. PBT decreased dose by 46% (8.2 Gy) and 64% (10.2 Gy) to the stomach and large bowel, respectively (p<0.01). Notably, PBT was found to avert 300 excess second cancers among 10,000 men treated at a median age of 39 and surviving to 75 (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS In this study, the use of protons provided a favorable dose distribution with an ability to limit unnecessary exposure to critical normal structures in the treatment of early-stage seminoma. It is expected that this will translate into decreased acute toxicity and reduced risk of second cancers, for which prospective studies are warranted.

Assessment of uncertainties in radiation-induced cancer risk predictions at clinically relevant doses

PURPOSE Theoretical dose-response models offer the possibility to assess second cancer induction risks after external beam therapy. The parameters used in these models are determined with limited data from epidemiological studies. Risk estimations are thus associated with considerable uncertainties. This study aims at illustrating uncertainties when predicting the risk for organ-specific second cancers in the primary radiation field illustrated by choosing selected treatment plans for brain cancer patients. METHODS A widely used risk model was considered in this study. The uncertainties of the model parameters were estimated with reported data of second cancer incidences for various organs. Standard error propagation was then subsequently applied to assess the uncertainty in the risk model. Next, second cancer risks of five pediatric patients treated for cancer in the head and neck regions were calculated. For each case, treatment plans for proton and photon therapy were designed to estimate the uncertainties (a) in the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) for a given treatment modality and (b) when comparing risks of two different treatment modalities. RESULTS Uncertainties in excess of 100% of the risk were found for almost all organs considered. When applied to treatment plans, the calculated LAR values have uncertainties of the same magnitude. A comparison between cancer risks of different treatment modalities, however, does allow statistically significant conclusions. In the studied cases, the patient averaged LAR ratio of proton and photon treatments was 0.35, 0.56, and 0.59 for brain carcinoma, brain sarcoma, and bone sarcoma, respectively. Their corresponding uncertainties were estimated to be potentially below 5%, depending on uncertainties in dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS The uncertainty in the dose-response curve in cancer risk models makes it currently impractical to predict the risk for an individual external beam treatment. On the other hand, the ratio of absolute risks between two modalities is less sensitive to the uncertainties in the risk model and can provide statistically significant estimates.

Impact of Spot Size and Beam-Shaping Devices on the Treatment Plan Quality for Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy

PURPOSE This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of spot size and the addition of apertures and range compensators on the treatment quality of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy and to define when PBS could improve on passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS The patient cohort included 14 pediatric patients treated with PSPT. Six PBS plans were created and optimized for each patient using 3 spot sizes (∼12-, 5.4-, and 2.5-mm median sigma at isocenter for 90- to 230-MeV range) and adding apertures and compensators to plans with the 2 larger spots. Conformity and homogeneity indices, dose-volume histogram parameters, equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and integral dose were quantified and compared with the respective PSPT plans. RESULTS The results clearly indicated that PBS with the largest spots does not necessarily offer a dosimetric or clinical advantage over PSPT. With comparable target coverage, the mean dose (Dmean) to healthy organs was on average 6.3% larger than PSPT when using this spot size. However, adding apertures to plans with large spots improved the treatment quality by decreasing the average Dmean and EUD by up to 8.6% and 3.2% of the prescribed dose, respectively. Decreasing the spot size further improved all plans, lowering the average Dmean and EUD by up to 11.6% and 10.9% compared with PSPT, respectively, and eliminated the need for beam-shaping devices. The NTCP decreased with spot size and addition of apertures, with maximum reduction of 5.4% relative to PSPT. CONCLUSIONS The added benefit of using PBS strongly depends on the delivery configurations. Facilities limited to large spot sizes (>∼8 mm median sigma at isocenter) are recommended to use apertures to reduce treatment-related toxicities, at least for complex and/or small tumors.

Probing the high momentum component of the deuteron at high Q2.

W.U. Boeglin, L. Coman, P. Ambrozewicz, K. Aniol, J. Arrington, G. Batigne, P. Bosted, A. Camsonne, G. Chang, J.P. Chen, S. Choi, A. Deur, M. Epstein, J.M. Finn, ∗ S. Frullani, C. Furget, F. Garibaldi, O. Gayou, 5 R. Gilman, 5 O. Hansen, D. Hayes, D.W. Higinbotham, W. Hinton, C. Hyde, H. Ibrahim, 11 C.W. de Jager, X. Jiang, M. K. Jones, L.J. Kaufman, † A. Klein, S. Kox, L. Kramer, G. Kumbartzki, J.M. Laget, J. LeRose, R. Lindgren, D.J. Margaziotis, P. Markowitz, K. McCormick, Z. Meziani, R. Michaels, B. Milbrath, J. Mitchell, ‡ P. Monaghan, M. Moteabbed, P. Moussiegt, R. Nasseripour, K. Paschke, C. Perdrisat, E. Piasetzky, V. Punjabi, I.A. Qattan, 3 G. Quéméner, R.D. Ransome, B. Raue, J.S. Réal, J. Reinhold, B. Reitz, R. Roché, M. Roedelbronn, A. Saha, ∗ K. Slifer, P. Solvignon, V. Sulkosky, § P.E. Ulmer, ‡ E. Voutier, L.B. Weinstein, B. Wojtsekhowski, and M. Zeier