Xianliang Wang1, Heng Li2, Xiaorong Ronald Zhu2, Qing Hou3, Li Liao4, Bo Jiang5, Yupeng Li2, Pei Wang6, Jinyi Lang6, Xiaodong Zhang7. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 3. Key Laboratory of Radiation Physics and Technology, Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 4. Global Oncology One, Houston, USA. 5. Department of Radiotherapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Chengdu, China. 7. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. Electronic address: xizhang@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We hypothesized that a plan's robustness to anatomical changes can be improved by optimizing with multiple CT scans of a patient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan could be developed to meet dose criteria on both planning and adaptive CT plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight lung cancer patients who underwent adaptive IMPT were retrospectively selected. Each patient had two CTs: a primary planning CT (PCT) and an adaptive planning CT (ACT), and IMPT plans associated with the scans. PCT and ACT were then used in combination to optimize one plan (MCT plan). The doses to the target and organs at risk from the PCT plan, ACT plan, P-ACT plan (PCT plan calculated on ACT data), and MCT plans calculated on both CTs were compared. RESULTS: The MCT plan maintained the D95% on both CTs (mean, 65.99 Gy on PCT and 66.02 Gy on ACT). Target dose coverage on ACT was significantly better with the MCT plan than with the P-ACT plan (p = 0.01). MCT plans had slightly higher lung V20 (0.6%, p = 0.02) than did PCT plans. The various plans showed no statistically significant difference in heart and spinal cord dose. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that an IMPT plan can meet the dose criteria on both PCT and ACT, and that MCT optimization can improve the plan's robustness to anatomical change.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We hypothesized that a plan's robustness to anatomical changes can be improved by optimizing with multiple CT scans of a patient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan could be developed to meet dose criteria on both planning and adaptive CT plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight lung cancerpatients who underwent adaptive IMPT were retrospectively selected. Each patient had two CTs: a primary planning CT (PCT) and an adaptive planning CT (ACT), and IMPT plans associated with the scans. PCT and ACT were then used in combination to optimize one plan (MCT plan). The doses to the target and organs at risk from the PCT plan, ACT plan, P-ACT plan (PCT plan calculated on ACT data), and MCT plans calculated on both CTs were compared. RESULTS: The MCT plan maintained the D95% on both CTs (mean, 65.99 Gy on PCT and 66.02 Gy on ACT). Target dose coverage on ACT was significantly better with the MCT plan than with the P-ACT plan (p = 0.01). MCT plans had slightly higher lung V20 (0.6%, p = 0.02) than did PCT plans. The various plans showed no statistically significant difference in heart and spinal cord dose. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that an IMPT plan can meet the dose criteria on both PCT and ACT, and that MCT optimization can improve the plan's robustness to anatomical change.
Authors: Michael D Chuong; Christopher L Hallemeier; Heng Li; Xiaorong Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang; Erik J Tryggestad; Jen Yu; Ming Yang; J Isabelle Choi; Minglei Kang; Wei Liu; Antje Knopf; Arturs Meijers; Jason K Molitoris; Smith Apisarnthanarax; Huan Giap; Bradford S Hoppe; Percy Lee; Joe Y Chang; Charles B Simone; Steven H Lin Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 6.244