Yupeng Li1, Laleh Kardar2, Xiaoqiang Li3, Heng Li3, Wenhua Cao4, Joe Y Chang5, Li Liao2, Ronald X Zhu3, Narayan Sahoo3, Michael Gillin3, Zhongxing Liao5, Ritsuko Komaki5, James D Cox5, Gino Lim2, Xiaodong Zhang3. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 and Applied Research, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California 94304. 2. Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030. 4. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 and Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the dosimetric impact of interplay between spot-scanning proton beam and respiratory motion in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for stage III lung cancer. METHODS: Eleven patients were sampled from 112 patients with stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer to well represent the distribution of 112 patients in terms of target size and motion. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were defined according to the authors' clinical protocol. Uniform and realistic breathing patterns were considered along with regular- and hypofractionation scenarios. The dose contributed by a spot was fully calculated on the computed tomography (CT) images corresponding to the respiratory phase that the spot is delivered, and then accumulated to the reference phase of the 4DCT to generate the dynamic dose that provides an estimation of what might be delivered under the influence of interplay effect. The dynamic dose distributions at different numbers of fractions were compared with the corresponding 4D composite dose which is the equally weighted average of the doses, respectively, computed on respiratory phases of a 4DCT image set. RESULTS: Under regular fractionation, the average and maximum differences in CTV coverage between the 4D composite and dynamic doses after delivery of all 35 fractions were no more than 0.2% and 0.9%, respectively. The maximum differences between the two dose distributions for the maximum dose to the spinal cord, heart V40, esophagus V55, and lung V20 were 1.2 Gy, 0.1%, 0.8%, and 0.4%, respectively. Although relatively large differences in single fraction, correlated with small CTVs relative to motions, were observed, the authors' biological response calculations suggested that this interfractional dose variation may have limited biological impact. Assuming a hypofractionation scenario, the differences between the 4D composite and dynamic doses were well confined even for single fraction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the presence of interplay effect, the delivered dose may be reliably estimated using the 4D composite dose. In general the interplay effect may not be a primary concern with IMPT for lung cancers for the authors' institution. The described interplay analysis tool may be used to provide additional confidence in treatment delivery.
PURPOSE: To assess the dosimetric impact of interplay between spot-scanning proton beam and respiratory motion in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for stage III lung cancer. METHODS: Eleven patients were sampled from 112 patients with stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer to well represent the distribution of 112 patients in terms of target size and motion. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were defined according to the authors' clinical protocol. Uniform and realistic breathing patterns were considered along with regular- and hypofractionation scenarios. The dose contributed by a spot was fully calculated on the computed tomography (CT) images corresponding to the respiratory phase that the spot is delivered, and then accumulated to the reference phase of the 4DCT to generate the dynamic dose that provides an estimation of what might be delivered under the influence of interplay effect. The dynamic dose distributions at different numbers of fractions were compared with the corresponding 4D composite dose which is the equally weighted average of the doses, respectively, computed on respiratory phases of a 4DCT image set. RESULTS: Under regular fractionation, the average and maximum differences in CTV coverage between the 4D composite and dynamic doses after delivery of all 35 fractions were no more than 0.2% and 0.9%, respectively. The maximum differences between the two dose distributions for the maximum dose to the spinal cord, heart V40, esophagus V55, and lung V20 were 1.2 Gy, 0.1%, 0.8%, and 0.4%, respectively. Although relatively large differences in single fraction, correlated with small CTVs relative to motions, were observed, the authors' biological response calculations suggested that this interfractional dose variation may have limited biological impact. Assuming a hypofractionation scenario, the differences between the 4D composite and dynamic doses were well confined even for single fraction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the presence of interplay effect, the delivered dose may be reliably estimated using the 4D composite dose. In general the interplay effect may not be a primary concern with IMPT for lung cancers for the authors' institution. The described interplay analysis tool may be used to provide additional confidence in treatment delivery.
Authors: He Wang; Lei Dong; Jennifer O'Daniel; Radhe Mohan; Adam S Garden; K Kian Ang; Deborah A Kuban; Mark Bonnen; Joe Y Chang; Rex Cheung Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yixiu Kang; Xiaodong Zhang; Joe Y Chang; He Wang; Xiong Wei; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Peter A Balter; Helen Liu; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Joe Y Chang; Heng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Zhongxing Liao; Lina Zhao; Amy Liu; Yupeng Li; Narayan Sahoo; Falk Poenisch; Daniel R Gomez; Richard Wu; Michael Gillin; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Laleh Kardar; Yupeng Li; Xiaoqiang Li; Heng Li; Wenhua Cao; Joe Y Chang; Li Liao; Ronald X Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael Gillin; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Gino Lim; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-08-12
Authors: Wei Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Yu-Hui Chang; Zhifei Wen; Jiajian Shen; Joshua B Stoker; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael G Herman; Carlos Vargas; Sameer Keole; William Wong; Martin Bues Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tejan P Diwanji; Pranshu Mohindra; Melissa Vyfhuis; James W Snider; Chaitanya Kalavagunta; Sina Mossahebi; Jen Yu; Steven Feigenberg; Shahed N Badiyan Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-04
Authors: Chenbin Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Shawn Korte; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Yixiu Kang; Sameer R Keole; Terence T Sio; William W Wong; Narayan Sahoo; Martin Bues; Wei Liu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jie Shan; Yunze Yang; Steven E Schild; Thomas B Daniels; William W Wong; Mirek Fatyga; Martin Bues; Terence T Sio; Wei Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.071