Shikui Tang1, Curtiland Deville2, Zelig Tochner2, Ken Kang-Hsin Wang3, James McDonough2, Neha Vapiwala2, Stefan Both2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; ProCure Proton Therapy Center, Somerset, New Jersey. Electronic address: shktang@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate the impact of interplay effect and plan robustness associated with intrafraction and residual interfraction prostate motion for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten prostate cancer patients with weekly verification CTs underwent pencil beam scanning with the bilateral single-field uniform dose (SFUD) modality. A typical field had 10-15 energy layers and 500-1000 spots. According to their treatment logs, each layer delivery time was <1 s, with average time to change layers of approximately 8 s. Real-time intrafraction prostate motion was determined from our previously reported prospective study using Calypso beacon transponders. Prostate motion and beam delivering sequence of the worst-case scenario patient were synchronized to calculate the "true" dose received by the prostate. The intrafraction effect was examined by applying the worst-case scenario prostate motion on the planning CT, and the residual interfraction effect was examined on the basis of weekly CT scans. The resultant dose variation of target and critical structures was examined to evaluate the interplay effect. RESULTS: The clinical target volume (CTV) coverage was degraded because of both effects. The CTV D99 (percentage dose to 99% of the CTV) varied up to 10% relative to the initial plan in individual fractions. However, over the entire course of treatment the total dose degradation of D99 was 2%-3%, with a standard deviation of <2%. Absolute differences between SFUD, intensity modulate proton therapy, and one-field-per-day SFUD plans were small. The intrafraction effect dominated over the residual interfraction effect for CTV coverage. Mean dose to the anterior rectal wall increased approximately 10% because of combined residual interfraction and intrafraction effects, the interfraction effect being dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Both intrafraction and residual interfraction prostate motion degrade CTV coverage within a clinically acceptable level. One-field-per-day SFUD delivered twice is as robust as the bilateral SFUD plan treated daily over the course of treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively evaluate the impact of interplay effect and plan robustness associated with intrafraction and residual interfraction prostate motion for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten prostate cancerpatients with weekly verification CTs underwent pencil beam scanning with the bilateral single-field uniform dose (SFUD) modality. A typical field had 10-15 energy layers and 500-1000 spots. According to their treatment logs, each layer delivery time was <1 s, with average time to change layers of approximately 8 s. Real-time intrafraction prostate motion was determined from our previously reported prospective study using Calypso beacon transponders. Prostate motion and beam delivering sequence of the worst-case scenario patient were synchronized to calculate the "true" dose received by the prostate. The intrafraction effect was examined by applying the worst-case scenario prostate motion on the planning CT, and the residual interfraction effect was examined on the basis of weekly CT scans. The resultant dose variation of target and critical structures was examined to evaluate the interplay effect. RESULTS: The clinical target volume (CTV) coverage was degraded because of both effects. The CTV D99 (percentage dose to 99% of the CTV) varied up to 10% relative to the initial plan in individual fractions. However, over the entire course of treatment the total dose degradation of D99 was 2%-3%, with a standard deviation of <2%. Absolute differences between SFUD, intensity modulate proton therapy, and one-field-per-day SFUD plans were small. The intrafraction effect dominated over the residual interfraction effect for CTV coverage. Mean dose to the anterior rectal wall increased approximately 10% because of combined residual interfraction and intrafraction effects, the interfraction effect being dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Both intrafraction and residual interfraction prostate motion degrade CTV coverage within a clinically acceptable level. One-field-per-day SFUD delivered twice is as robust as the bilateral SFUD plan treated daily over the course of treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Matthew Forsthoefel; Ryan Hankins; Elizabeth Ballew; Cara Frame; David DeBlois; Dalong Pang; Pranay Krishnan; Keith Unger; Keith Kowalczyk; John Lynch; Anatoly Dritschilo; Sean P Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2022-04-06