David C Hall1, Alexei V Trofimov1, Brian A Winey1, Norbert J Liebsch1, Harald Paganetti2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: hpaganetti@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To predict the organ at risk (OAR) dose levels achievable with proton beam therapy (PBT), solely based on the geometric arrangement of the target volume in relation to the OARs. A comparison with an alternative therapy yields a prediction of the patient-specific benefits offered by PBT. This could enable physicians at hospitals without proton capabilities to make a better-informed referral decision or aid patient selection in model-based clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Skull-base tumors were chosen to test the method, owing to their geometric complexity and multitude of nearby OARs. By exploiting the correlations between the dose and distance-to-target in existing PBT plans, the models were independently trained for 6 types of OARs: brainstem, cochlea, optic chiasm, optic nerve, parotid gland, and spinal cord. Once trained, the models could estimate the feasible dose-volume histogram and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) for OAR structures of new patients. The models were trained using 20 patients and validated using an additional 21 patients. Validation was achieved by comparing the predicted gEUD to that of the actual PBT plan. RESULTS: The predicted and planned gEUD were in good agreement. Considering all OARs, the prediction error was +1.4 ± 5.1 Gy (mean ± standard deviation), and Pearson's correlation coefficient was 93%. By comparing with an intensity modulated photon treatment plan, the model could classify whether an OAR structure would experience a gain, with a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval: 87%-97%) and specificity of 63% (95% confidence interval: 38%-84%). CONCLUSIONS: We trained and validated models that could quickly and accurately predict the patient-specific benefits of PBT for skull-base tumors. Similar models could be developed for other tumor sites. Such models will be useful when an estimation of the feasible benefits of PBT is desired but the experience and/or resources required for treatment planning are unavailable.
PURPOSE: To predict the organ at risk (OAR) dose levels achievable with proton beam therapy (PBT), solely based on the geometric arrangement of the target volume in relation to the OARs. A comparison with an alternative therapy yields a prediction of the patient-specific benefits offered by PBT. This could enable physicians at hospitals without proton capabilities to make a better-informed referral decision or aid patient selection in model-based clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Skull-base tumors were chosen to test the method, owing to their geometric complexity and multitude of nearby OARs. By exploiting the correlations between the dose and distance-to-target in existing PBT plans, the models were independently trained for 6 types of OARs: brainstem, cochlea, optic chiasm, optic nerve, parotid gland, and spinal cord. Once trained, the models could estimate the feasible dose-volume histogram and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) for OAR structures of new patients. The models were trained using 20 patients and validated using an additional 21 patients. Validation was achieved by comparing the predicted gEUD to that of the actual PBT plan. RESULTS: The predicted and planned gEUD were in good agreement. Considering all OARs, the prediction error was +1.4 ± 5.1 Gy (mean ± standard deviation), and Pearson's correlation coefficient was 93%. By comparing with an intensity modulated photon treatment plan, the model could classify whether an OAR structure would experience a gain, with a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval: 87%-97%) and specificity of 63% (95% confidence interval: 38%-84%). CONCLUSIONS: We trained and validated models that could quickly and accurately predict the patient-specific benefits of PBT for skull-base tumors. Similar models could be developed for other tumor sites. Such models will be useful when an estimation of the feasible benefits of PBT is desired but the experience and/or resources required for treatment planning are unavailable.
Authors: Joachim Widder; Arjen van der Schaaf; Philippe Lambin; Corrie A M Marijnen; Jean-Philippe Pignol; Coen R Rasch; Ben J Slotman; Marcel Verheij; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Niranjan Bhandare; Andrew Jackson; Avraham Eisbruch; Charlie C Pan; John C Flickinger; Patrick Antonelli; William M Mendenhall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Laura Marucci; Andrzej Niemierko; Norbert J Liebsch; Fethiya Aboubaker; Mitchell C C Liu; J E Munzenrider Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Binbin Wu; Francesco Ricchetti; Giuseppe Sanguineti; Misha Kazhdan; Patricio Simari; Ming Chuang; Russell Taylor; Robert Jacques; Todd McNutt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Makbule Tambas; Hans Paul van der Laan; Arjen van der Schaaf; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Johannes Albertus Langendijk Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 6.639