Tatsuya Inoue1, Joachim Widder2, Lisanne V van Dijk2, Hideki Takegawa3, Masahiko Koizumi4, Masaaki Takashina4, Keisuke Usui5, Chie Kurokawa5, Satoru Sugimoto5, Anneyuko I Saito6, Keisuke Sasai5, Aart A Van't Veld2, Johannes A Langendijk2, Erik W Korevaar7. 1. Department of Radiology, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, Chiba, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kansai Medical University Hirakata Hospital, Osaka, Japan. 4. Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 6. Department of Radiology, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, Chiba, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.w.korevaar@umcg.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of setup and range uncertainties, breathing motion, and interplay effects using scanning pencil beams in robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three-field IMPT plans were created using a minimax robust optimization technique for 10 NSCLC patients. The plans accounted for 5- or 7-mm setup errors with ±3% range uncertainties. The robustness of the IMPT nominal plans was evaluated considering (1) isotropic 5-mm setup errors with ±3% range uncertainties; (2) breathing motion; (3) interplay effects; and (4) a combination of items 1 and 2. The plans were calculated using 4-dimensional and average intensity projection computed tomography images. The target coverage (TC, volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose) and homogeneity index (D2 - D98, where D2 and D98 are the least doses received by 2% and 98% of the volume) for the internal clinical target volume, and dose indexes for lung, esophagus, heart and spinal cord were compared with that of clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. RESULTS: The TC and homogeneity index for all plans were within clinical limits when considering the breathing motion and interplay effects independently. The setup and range uncertainties had a larger effect when considering their combined effect. The TC decreased to <98% (clinical threshold) in 3 of 10 patients for robust 5-mm evaluations. However, the TC remained >98% for robust 7-mm evaluations for all patients. The organ at risk dose parameters did not significantly vary between the respective robust 5-mm and robust 7-mm evaluations for the 4 error types. Compared with the volumetric modulated arc therapy plans, the IMPT plans showed better target homogeneity and mean lung and heart dose parameters reduced by about 40% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In robustly optimized IMPT for stage III NSCLC, the setup and range uncertainties, breathing motion, and interplay effects have limited impact on target coverage, dose homogeneity, and organ-at-risk dose parameters.
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of setup and range uncertainties, breathing motion, and interplay effects using scanning pencil beams in robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three-field IMPT plans were created using a minimax robust optimization technique for 10 NSCLCpatients. The plans accounted for 5- or 7-mm setup errors with ±3% range uncertainties. The robustness of the IMPT nominal plans was evaluated considering (1) isotropic 5-mm setup errors with ±3% range uncertainties; (2) breathing motion; (3) interplay effects; and (4) a combination of items 1 and 2. The plans were calculated using 4-dimensional and average intensity projection computed tomography images. The target coverage (TC, volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose) and homogeneity index (D2 - D98, where D2 and D98 are the least doses received by 2% and 98% of the volume) for the internal clinical target volume, and dose indexes for lung, esophagus, heart and spinal cord were compared with that of clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. RESULTS: The TC and homogeneity index for all plans were within clinical limits when considering the breathing motion and interplay effects independently. The setup and range uncertainties had a larger effect when considering their combined effect. The TC decreased to <98% (clinical threshold) in 3 of 10 patients for robust 5-mm evaluations. However, the TC remained >98% for robust 7-mm evaluations for all patients. The organ at risk dose parameters did not significantly vary between the respective robust 5-mm and robust 7-mm evaluations for the 4 error types. Compared with the volumetric modulated arc therapy plans, the IMPT plans showed better target homogeneity and mean lung and heart dose parameters reduced by about 40% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In robustly optimized IMPT for stage III NSCLC, the setup and range uncertainties, breathing motion, and interplay effects have limited impact on target coverage, dose homogeneity, and organ-at-risk dose parameters.
Authors: Adam D Yock; Radhe Mohan; Stella Flampouri; Walter Bosch; Paige A Taylor; David Gladstone; Siyong Kim; Jason Sohn; Robert Wallace; Ying Xiao; Jeff Buchsbaum Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-15
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: Seán Walsh; Erik Roelofs; Peter Kuess; Yvonka van Wijk; Ben Vanneste; Andre Dekker; Philippe Lambin; Bleddyn Jones; Dietmar Georg; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-02-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Chenbin Liu; Terence T Sio; Wei Deng; Jie Shan; Thomas B Daniels; William G Rule; Pedro R Lara; Shawn M Korte; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Steven E Schild; Martin Bues; Wei Liu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 4.174