Laleh Kardar1, Yupeng Li2, Xiaoqiang Li3, Heng Li3, Wenhua Cao1, Joe Y Chang4, Li Liao5, Ronald X Zhu3, Narayan Sahoo3, Michael Gillin3, Zhongxing Liao4, Ritsuko Komaki4, James D Cox4, Gino Lim5, Xiaodong Zhang6. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Applied Research, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California. 3. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Houston, Houston, Texas. 6. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: xizhang@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the interplay effects of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for lung cancer in the clinical setting. The secondary aim was to explore the technique of isolayered rescanning to mitigate these interplay effects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-fraction 4-dimensional (4D) dynamic dose without considering rescanning (1FX dynamic dose) was used as a metric to determine the magnitude of dosimetric degradation caused by 4D interplay effects. The 1FX dynamic dose was calculated by simulating the machine delivery processes of proton spot scanning on a moving patient, described by 4D computed tomography during IMPT delivery. The dose contributed from an individual spot was fully calculated on the respiratory phase that corresponded to the life span of that spot, and the final dose was accumulated to a reference computed tomography phase by use of deformable image registration. The 1FX dynamic dose was compared with the 4D composite dose. Seven patients with various tumor volumes and motions were selected for study. RESULTS: The clinical target volume (CTV) prescription coverage for the 7 patients was 95.04%, 95.38%, 95.39%, 95.24%, 95.65%, 95.90%, and 95.53% when calculated with the 4D composite dose and 89.30%, 94.70%, 85.47%, 94.09%, 79.69%, 91.20%, and 94.19% when calculated with the 1FX dynamic dose. For these 7 patients, the CTV coverage calculated by use of a single-fraction dynamic dose was 95.52%, 95.32%, 96.36%, 95.28%, 94.32%, 95.53%, and 95.78%, with a maximum monitor unit limit value of 0.005. In other words, by increasing the number of delivered spots in each fraction, the degradation of CTV coverage improved up to 14.6%. CONCLUSIONS: A single-fraction 4D dynamic dose without rescanning was validated as a surrogate to evaluate the interplay effects of IMPT for lung cancer in the clinical setting. The interplay effects potentially can be mitigated by increasing the amount of isolayered rescanning in each fraction delivery.
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the interplay effects of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for lung cancer in the clinical setting. The secondary aim was to explore the technique of isolayered rescanning to mitigate these interplay effects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-fraction 4-dimensional (4D) dynamic dose without considering rescanning (1FX dynamic dose) was used as a metric to determine the magnitude of dosimetric degradation caused by 4D interplay effects. The 1FX dynamic dose was calculated by simulating the machine delivery processes of proton spot scanning on a moving patient, described by 4D computed tomography during IMPT delivery. The dose contributed from an individual spot was fully calculated on the respiratory phase that corresponded to the life span of that spot, and the final dose was accumulated to a reference computed tomography phase by use of deformable image registration. The 1FX dynamic dose was compared with the 4D composite dose. Seven patients with various tumor volumes and motions were selected for study. RESULTS: The clinical target volume (CTV) prescription coverage for the 7 patients was 95.04%, 95.38%, 95.39%, 95.24%, 95.65%, 95.90%, and 95.53% when calculated with the 4D composite dose and 89.30%, 94.70%, 85.47%, 94.09%, 79.69%, 91.20%, and 94.19% when calculated with the 1FX dynamic dose. For these 7 patients, the CTV coverage calculated by use of a single-fraction dynamic dose was 95.52%, 95.32%, 96.36%, 95.28%, 94.32%, 95.53%, and 95.78%, with a maximum monitor unit limit value of 0.005. In other words, by increasing the number of delivered spots in each fraction, the degradation of CTV coverage improved up to 14.6%. CONCLUSIONS: A single-fraction 4D dynamic dose without rescanning was validated as a surrogate to evaluate the interplay effects of IMPT for lung cancer in the clinical setting. The interplay effects potentially can be mitigated by increasing the amount of isolayered rescanning in each fraction delivery.
Authors: Alfred Smith; Michael Gillin; Martin Bues; X Ronald Zhu; Kazumichi Suzuki; Radhe Mohan; Shiao Woo; Andrew Lee; Ritsko Komaki; James Cox; Kazuo Hiramoto; Hiroshi Akiyama; Takayuki Ishida; Toshie Sasaki; Koji Matsuda Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Heng Li; Yupeng Li; Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaoqiang Li; Wei Liu; Michael T Gillin; X Ronald Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.071
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
Authors: Shengpeng Jiang; Jingqian Wang; Heng Li; Li Liao; Yupeng Li; Xiaochun Wang; Yining Yang; Ronald X Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael T Gillin; Yoshifumi Hojo; Jian Sun; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; David Grosshans; Steven J Frank; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-08-29
Authors: Olsi Gjyshi; Ting Xu; Adnan Elhammali; David Boyce-Fappiano; Stephen G Chun; Saumil Gandhi; Percy Lee; Aileen B Chen; Steven H Lin; Joe Y Chang; Anne Tsao; Carl M Gay; X Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang; John V Heymach; Frank V Fossella; Charles Lu; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Zhongxing Liao Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jingjing M Dougherty; Edward Castillo; Richard Castillo; Austin M Faught; Mark Pepin; Sean S Park; Chris J Beltran; Thomas Guerrero; Inga Grills; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 2.102