Xiaoning Ding

Commissioning of output factors for uniform scanning proton beams

PURPOSE Current commercial treatment planning systems are not able to accurately predict output factors and calculate monitor units for proton fields. Patient-specific field output factors are thus determined by either measurements or empirical modeling based on commissioning data. The objective of this study is to commission output factors for uniform scanning beams utilized at the ProCure proton therapy centers. METHODS Using water phantoms and a plane parallel ionization chamber, the authors first measured output factors with a fixed 10 cm diameter aperture as a function of proton range and modulation width for clinically available proton beams with ranges between 4 and 31.5 cm and modulation widths between 2 and 15 cm. The authors then measured the output factor as a function of collimated field size at various calibration depths for proton beams of various ranges and modulation widths. The authors further examined the dependence of the output factor on the scanning area (i.e., uncollimated proton field), snout position, and phantom material. An empirical model was developed to calculate the output factor for patient-specific fields and the model-predicted output factors were compared to measurements. RESULTS The output factor increased with proton range and field size, and decreased with modulation width. The scanning area and snout position have a small but non-negligible effect on the output factors. The predicted output factors based on the empirical modeling agreed within 2% of measurements for all prostate treatment fields and within 3% for 98.5% of all treatment fields. CONCLUSIONS Comprehensive measurements at a large subset of available beam conditions are needed to commission output factors for proton therapy beams. The empirical modeling agrees well with the measured output factor data. This investigation indicates that it is possible to accurately predict output factors and thus eliminate or reduce time-consuming patient-specific output measurements for proton treatments.

Exploratory Study of 4D versus 3D Robust Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of uncertainties and interplay on 3-dimensional (3D) and 4D robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for lung cancer in an exploratory methodology study. METHODS AND MATERIALS IMPT plans were created for 11 nonrandomly selected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases: 3D robustly optimized plans on average CTs with internal gross tumor volume density overridden to irradiate internal target volume, and 4D robustly optimized plans on 4D computed tomography (CT) to irradiate clinical target volume (CTV). Regular fractionation (66 Gy [relative biological effectiveness; RBE] in 33 fractions) was considered. In 4D optimization, the CTV of individual phases received nonuniform doses to achieve a uniform cumulative dose. The root-mean-square dose-volume histograms (RVH) measured the sensitivity of the dose to uncertainties, and the areas under the RVH curve (AUCs) were used to evaluate plan robustness. Dose evaluation software modeled time-dependent spot delivery to incorporate interplay effect with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) indices comparing CTV coverage, homogeneity, and normal tissue sparing were evaluated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS 4D robust optimization plans led to smaller AUC for CTV (14.26 vs 18.61, respectively; P=.001), better CTV coverage (Gy [RBE]) (D95% CTV: 60.6 vs 55.2, respectively; P=.001), and better CTV homogeneity (D5%-D95% CTV: 10.3 vs 17.7, respectively; P=.002) in the face of uncertainties. With interplay effect considered, 4D robust optimization produced plans with better target coverage (D95% CTV: 64.5 vs 63.8, respectively; P=.0068), comparable target homogeneity, and comparable normal tissue protection. The benefits from 4D robust optimization were most obvious for the 2 typical stage III lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS Our exploratory methodology study showed that, compared to 3D robust optimization, 4D robust optimization produced significantly more robust and interplay-effect-resistant plans for targets with comparable dose distributions for normal tissues. A further study with a larger and more realistic patient population is warranted to generalize the conclusions.

Robust intensity-modulated proton therapy to reduce high linear energy transfer in organs at risk.

Purpose: We propose a robust treatment planning model that simultaneously considers proton range and patient setup uncertainties and reduces high linear energy transfer (LET) exposure in organs at risk (OARs) to minimize the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) dose in OARs for intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Our method could potentially reduce the unwanted damage to OARs. Methods: We retrospectively generated plans for 10 patients including two prostate, four head and neck, and four lung cancer patients. The “worst‐case robust optimization” model was applied. One additional term as a “biological surrogate (BS)” of OARs due to the high LET‐related biological effects was added in the objective function. The biological surrogate was defined as the sum of the physical dose and extra biological effects caused by the dose‐averaged LET. We generated nine uncertainty scenarios that considered proton range and patient setup uncertainty. Corresponding to each uncertainty scenario, LET was obtained by a fast LET calculation method developed in‐house and based on Monte Carlo simulations. In each optimization iteration, the model used the worst‐case BS among all scenarios and then penalized overly high BS to organs. The model was solved by an efficient algorithm (limited‐memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno) in a parallel computing environment. Our new model was benchmarked with the conventional robust planning model without considering BS. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the dose assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1 and BS for tumor and organs under nominal and uncertainty scenarios were compared to assess the plan quality between the two methods. Results: For the 10 cases, our model outperformed the conventional robust model in avoidance of high LET in OARs. At the same time, our method could achieve dose distributions and plan robustness of tumors assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1 almost the same as those of the conventional robust model. Conclusions: Explicitly considering LET in IMPT robust treatment planning can reduce the high LET to OARs and minimize the possible toxicity of high RBE dose to OARs without sacrificing plan quality. We believe this will allow one to design and deliver safer proton therapy.

Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95% and D5%) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS The DVHB showed that the width at D95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D95%: 3.28 vs 3.00; D5%: 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. CONCLUSIONS The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter-dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

MO‐A‐213AB‐03: Commissioning of a Clinical Chair for Patients Treated in the Seated Position Using an Inclined Beam Line Treatment Room

PURPOSES A chair, coupled to a robotic patient positioning system (PPS) was manufactured to treat an intracranial tumor in a proton incline beam-line system. Treating patients in the seated position as accurately and efficiently as a treatment table requires the essential functions of isocentric rotation and a weight-sagging-correction algorithm for positioning patients in the seated position. METHODS AND MATERIALS The chair design incorporated a down-slope arm to achieve the desired beam-line height. To overcome this limitation of only 125 degree rotation on PPS, five indexed positions of the seat-base-plate (SBP) were implemented. An in-house developed optical tracking system using a six degree-of-freedom optical camera system was used to align the treatment room coordinate system with the chair coordinate system at all SBP positions. Furthermore, this optical tracking system quantified the sagging effect due to both the height and weight of a variety of patients. RESULTS The optical tracking system can measure accuracy of 0.1 degree and 0.1 mm. The SBP rotating axis was aligned within 0.1 degree to PPS rotating axis. A residual precession of chair rotation was found to be an ellipse with long axis of 2.0 mm and short axis of 1.0 mm. An additional 0.75 mm deviation occurred between rotating of SBP and PPS axes. Sagging tilt of 0.6 degree was found on the SBP for the home position for every additional 162 lbs load. This resulted in a 1.1cm shift (0.65 cm forward and 0.87 cm) for an isocenter 90 cm away from the SBP plate. CONCLUSIONS Using in-house developed optical tracking system, the overall maximum displacement of treatment chair system from isocenter is within 3.0 mm with known sagging characteristics. This characterization is essential to reduce the total treatment time and limited the number of X-rays required for accurate patient alignment in the seated position.

SU‐E‐T‐358: Dosimetric Effects of Beam Angle Arrangements in Lung Proton Therapy

Purpose: The Inclined Beam Line (IBL) is an innovative partial gantry design which provides two beam angles at 30 and 90 degrees with full flexibility of the patient positioning system of the gantry design. Compared to the full gantry design in proton therapy, the IBL is a simplified design allowing for less equipment maintenance, physics quality assurance, and costs. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that IBL provides sufficient choice of beam angles and efficient beam delivery to treat most protonlung patients.Methods: Eight lung patients who had protontreatment at our center were selected for this study. We designed three treatment plans for each of the eight patients in supine position, using beam arrangements with (1) full gantry, (2) IBL, and (3) hybrid, i.e., a combination of a gantry plan and an IBL plan with the patients being treated with each plan in alternative days. Xio TPS (CMS, St. Louis, MO) was used to design treatment plans. Results: We have compared the dosimetric differences of the three planning strategies. The PTV D95 was within 1% for all three plans for each patient. On average, the lung V20, V10, and V5 were 3.6%/3.7%, 5.1%/3.7%, and 5.1%/1.6% higher for the IBL plans than that for the gantry/hybrid plans, respectively. Cord max dose, esophagus dose, and heart dose showed similar trends. Among all eight patients, IBL plan was not able to meet cord dose limit for only one patient who was treated for right posterior chest wall. Conclusions: Our results showed that seven out of the eight patients (88%) could be treated with full gantry, IBL, or hybrid plans with sufficient target coverage and reasonable critical structure sparing. Therefore, IBL was a sufficient protontreatment delivery method for most of the lung patients in this study.

Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A dosimetric comparative study

Abstract Purpose To compare dosimetric performance of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy for stage III non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods and Materials A total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D‐CTs. The dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results Compared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax, heart Dmean, and lung V5 Gy[ RBE ] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean, but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax, lung Dmean, and V5 Gy[ RBE ]. Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered. Conclusions Small‐spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.

Multiple energy extraction reduces beam delivery time for a synchrotron-based proton spot-scanning system

Purpose Multiple energy extraction (MEE) is a technology that was recently introduced by Hitachi for its spot-scanning proton treatment system, which allows multiple energies to be delivered in a single synchrotron spill. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how much beam delivery time (BDT) can be reduced with MEE compared with single energy extraction (SEE), in which one energy is delivered per spill. Methods and Materials A recently developed model based on BDT measurements of our synchrotrons delivery performance was used to compute BDT. The total BDT for 2694 beam deliveries in a cohort of 79 patients treated at our institution was computed in both SEE and 9 MEE configurations to determine BDT reduction. The cohort BDT reduction was also calculated for hypothetical accelerators with increased deliverable charge and compared with the results of our current delivery system. Results A vendor-provided MEE configuration with 4 energy layers per spill reduced the total BDT on average by 35% (41 seconds) compared with SEE, with up to 65% BDT reduction for individual fields. Adding an MEE layer reduced the total BDT by <1% of SEE BDT. However, improving charge recapture efficiency increased BDT savings by up to 42% of SEE BDT. Conclusions The MEE delivery technique reduced the total BDT by 35%. Increasing the charge per spill and charge recapture efficiency is necessary to further reduce BDT and thereby take full advantage of our MEE systems potential to improve treatment delivery efficiency and operational throughput.

Exploratory study of the association of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan robustness with local failure in head and neck cancer

Abstract This work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso‐center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fishers exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

Use of a radial projection to reduce the statistical uncertainty of spot lateral profiles generated by Monte Carlo simulation

Abstract Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been used to generate commissioning data for the beam modeling of treatment planning system (TPS). We have developed a method called radial projection (RP) for postprocessing of MC‐simulation‐generated data. We used the RP method to reduce the statistical uncertainty of the lateral profile of proton pencil beams with axial symmetry. The RP method takes advantage of the axial symmetry of dose distribution to use the mean value of multiple independent scores as the representative score. Using the mean as the representative value rather than any individual score results in substantial reduction in statistical uncertainty. Herein, we present the concept and step‐by‐step implementation of the RP method, as well as show the advantage of the RP method over conventional measurement methods for generating lateral profile. Lateral profiles generated by both methods were compared to demonstrate the uncertainty reduction qualitatively, and standard error comparison was performed to demonstrate the reduction quantitatively. The comparisons showed that statistical uncertainty was reduced substantially by the RP method. Using the RP method to postprocess MC data, the corresponding MC simulation time was reduced by a factor of 10 without quality reduction in the generated result from the MC data. We concluded that the RP method is an effective technique to increase MC simulation efficiency for generating lateral profiles for axially symmetric pencil beams.