PURPOSE: To investigate how spot size and spacing affect plan quality, robustness, and interplay effects of robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two robustly optimized IMPT plans were created for 10 lung cancer patients: first by a large-spot machine with in-air energy-dependent large spot size at isocenter (σ: 6-15 mm) and spacing (1.3 σ), and second by a small-spot machine with in-air energy-dependent small spot size (σ: 2-6 mm) and spacing (5 mm). Both plans were generated by optimizing radiation dose to internal target volume on averaged 4-dimensional computed tomography scans using an in-house-developed IMPT planning system. The dose-volume histograms band method was used to evaluate plan robustness. Dose evaluation software was developed to model time-dependent spot delivery to incorporate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. Patient anatomy voxels were mapped phase-to-phase via deformable image registration, and doses were scored using in-house-developed software. Dose-volume histogram indices, including internal target volume dose coverage, homogeneity, and organs at risk (OARs) sparing, were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Compared with the large-spot machine, the small-spot machine resulted in significantly lower heart and esophagus mean doses, with comparable target dose coverage, homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. Plan robustness was comparable for targets and most OARs. With interplay effects considered, significantly lower heart and esophagus mean doses with comparable target dose coverage and homogeneity were observed using smaller spots. CONCLUSIONS: Robust optimization with a small spot-machine significantly improves heart and esophagus sparing, with comparable plan robustness and interplay effects compared with robust optimization with a large-spot machine. A small-spot machine uses a larger number of spots to cover the same tumors compared with a large-spot machine, which gives the planning system more freedom to compensate for the higher sensitivity to uncertainties and interplay effects for lung cancer treatments.
PURPOSE: To investigate how spot size and spacing affect plan quality, robustness, and interplay effects of robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two robustly optimized IMPT plans were created for 10 lung cancerpatients: first by a large-spot machine with in-air energy-dependent large spot size at isocenter (σ: 6-15 mm) and spacing (1.3 σ), and second by a small-spot machine with in-air energy-dependent small spot size (σ: 2-6 mm) and spacing (5 mm). Both plans were generated by optimizing radiation dose to internal target volume on averaged 4-dimensional computed tomography scans using an in-house-developed IMPT planning system. The dose-volume histograms band method was used to evaluate plan robustness. Dose evaluation software was developed to model time-dependent spot delivery to incorporate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. Patient anatomy voxels were mapped phase-to-phase via deformable image registration, and doses were scored using in-house-developed software. Dose-volume histogram indices, including internal target volume dose coverage, homogeneity, and organs at risk (OARs) sparing, were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Compared with the large-spot machine, the small-spot machine resulted in significantly lower heart and esophagus mean doses, with comparable target dose coverage, homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. Plan robustness was comparable for targets and most OARs. With interplay effects considered, significantly lower heart and esophagus mean doses with comparable target dose coverage and homogeneity were observed using smaller spots. CONCLUSIONS: Robust optimization with a small spot-machine significantly improves heart and esophagus sparing, with comparable plan robustness and interplay effects compared with robust optimization with a large-spot machine. A small-spot machine uses a larger number of spots to cover the same tumors compared with a large-spot machine, which gives the planning system more freedom to compensate for the higher sensitivity to uncertainties and interplay effects for lung cancer treatments.
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: Bowen Lin; Shujun Fu; Yuting Lin; Ronny L Rotondo; Weizhang Huang; Harold H Li; Ronald C Chen; Hao Gao Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 4.174
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: Nathan Y Yu; Todd A DeWees; Chenbin Liu; Thomas B Daniels; Jonathan B Ashman; Staci E Beamer; Dawn E Jaroszewski; Helen J Ross; Harshita R Paripati; Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Julia X Ding; Jie Shan; Wei Liu; Steven E Schild; Terence T Sio Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-08-21
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: Jennifer S Chiang; Nathan Y Yu; Thomas B Daniels; Wei Liu; Steven E Schild; Terence T Sio Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: James E Younkin; Danairis Hernandez Morales; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Joshua B Stoker; Nathan Y Yu; Terence T Sio; Thomas B Daniels; Martin Bues; Mirek Fatyga; Steven E Schild; Wei Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Hongying Feng; Terence T Sio; William G Rule; Ronik S Bhangoo; Pedro Lara; Christopher L Patrick; Shawn Korte; Mirek Fatyga; William W Wong; Steven E Schild; Jonathan B Ashman; Wei Liu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.243