Joshua B Stoker1, Jonathan Grant2, X Ronald Zhu3, Rajesh Pidikiti3, Anita Mahajan2, David R Grosshans2. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. Electronic address: stoker.joshua@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare field junction robustness and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) during craniospinal irradiation (CSI) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to conventional passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients, 5 adult and 5 pediatric patients, previously treated with PSPT-based CSI were selected for comparison. Anterior oblique cranial fields, using a superior couch rotation, and posterior spinal fields were used for IMPT planning. To facilitate low-gradient field junctioning along the spine, the inverse-planning IMPT technique was divided into 3 stages. Dose indices describing target coverage and normal tissue dose, in silico error modeling, and film dosimetry were used to assess plan quality. RESULTS: Field junction robustness along the spine was improved using the staged IMPT planning technique, reducing the worst case impact of a 4-mm setup error from 25% in PSPT to <5% of prescription dose. This was verified by film dosimetry for clinical delivery. Exclusive of thyroid dose in adult patients, IMPT plans demonstrated sparing of organs at risk as good or better than PSPT. Coverage of the cribriform plate for pediatric (V95% [percentage of volume of the target receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose]; 87 ± 11 vs 92 ± 7) and adult (V95%; 94 ± 7 vs 100 ± 1) patients and the clinical target in pediatric (V95%; 98 ± 2 vs 100 ± 1) and adult (V95%; 100 ± 1 vs 100 ± 1) patients for PSPT and IMPT plans, respectively, were comparable or improved. For adult patients, IMPT target dose inhomogeneity was increased, as determined by heterogeneity index (HI) and inhomogeneity coefficient (IC). IMPT lowered maximum spinal cord dose, improved spinal dose homogeneity, and reduced exposure to other OARs. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT has the potential to improve CSI plan quality and the homogeneity of intrafractional dose at match lines. The IMPT approach developed may also simplify treatments and reduce workload per patient relative to PSPT.
PURPOSE: To compare field junction robustness and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) during craniospinal irradiation (CSI) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) to conventional passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients, 5 adult and 5 pediatric patients, previously treated with PSPT-based CSI were selected for comparison. Anterior oblique cranial fields, using a superior couch rotation, and posterior spinal fields were used for IMPT planning. To facilitate low-gradient field junctioning along the spine, the inverse-planning IMPT technique was divided into 3 stages. Dose indices describing target coverage and normal tissue dose, in silico error modeling, and film dosimetry were used to assess plan quality. RESULTS: Field junction robustness along the spine was improved using the staged IMPT planning technique, reducing the worst case impact of a 4-mm setup error from 25% in PSPT to <5% of prescription dose. This was verified by film dosimetry for clinical delivery. Exclusive of thyroid dose in adult patients, IMPT plans demonstrated sparing of organs at risk as good or better than PSPT. Coverage of the cribriform plate for pediatric (V95% [percentage of volume of the target receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose]; 87 ± 11 vs 92 ± 7) and adult (V95%; 94 ± 7 vs 100 ± 1) patients and the clinical target in pediatric (V95%; 98 ± 2 vs 100 ± 1) and adult (V95%; 100 ± 1 vs 100 ± 1) patients for PSPT and IMPT plans, respectively, were comparable or improved. For adult patients, IMPT target dose inhomogeneity was increased, as determined by heterogeneity index (HI) and inhomogeneity coefficient (IC). IMPT lowered maximum spinal cord dose, improved spinal dose homogeneity, and reduced exposure to other OARs. CONCLUSIONS: IMPT has the potential to improve CSI plan quality and the homogeneity of intrafractional dose at match lines. The IMPT approach developed may also simplify treatments and reduce workload per patient relative to PSPT.
Authors: Brian De; Oren Cahlon; Kevin Sine; Dennis Mah; Eugen B Hug; Suzanne L Wolden Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: Li Liao; Gino J Lim; Yupeng Li; Juan Yu; Narayan Sahoo; Heng Li; Michael Gillin; X Ronald Zhu; Anita Mahajan; Steven J Frank; David R Grosshans; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Daniel Gomez; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-12-30
Authors: Erik Traneus; Nicola Bizzocchi; Francesco Fellin; Barbara Rombi; Paolo Farace Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 2.102