PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of interplay between spot-scanning proton beams and respiration-induced tumor motion on internal target volume coverage for pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Photon treatments for 10 children with representative tumor motions (1-13 mm superior-inferior) were replanned to simulate single-field uniform dose- optimized proton therapy. Static plans were designed by using average computed tomography (CT) data sets created from 4D CT data to obtain nominal dose distributions. The motion interplay effect was simulated by assigning each spot in the static plan delivery sequence to 1 of 10 respiratory-phase CTs, using the actual patient breathing trace and specifications of a synchrotron-based proton system. Dose distributions for individual phases were deformed onto the space of the average CT and summed to produce the accumulated dose distribution, whose dose-volume histogram was compared with the one from the static plan. RESULTS: Tumor motion had minimal impact on the internal target volume hot spot (D2), which deviated by <3% from the nominal values of the static plans. The cold spot (D98) was also minimally affected, except in 2 patients with diaphragmatic tumor motion exceeding 10 mm. The impact on tumor coverage was more pronounced with respect to the V99 rather than the V95. Decreases of 10% to 49% in the V99 occurred in multiple patients for whom the beam paths traversed the lung-diaphragm interface and were, therefore, more sensitive to respiration-induced changes in the water equivalent path length. Fractionation alone apparently did not mitigate the interplay effect beyond 6 fractions. CONCLUSION: The interplay effect is not a concern when delivering scanning proton beams to younger pediatric patients with tumors located in the retroperitoneal space and tumor motion of <5 mm. Children and adolescents with diaphragmatic tumor motion exceeding 10 mm require special attention, because significant declines in target coverage and dose homogeneity were seen in simulated treatments of such patients.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of interplay between spot-scanning proton beams and respiration-induced tumor motion on internal target volume coverage for pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Photon treatments for 10 children with representative tumor motions (1-13 mm superior-inferior) were replanned to simulate single-field uniform dose- optimized proton therapy. Static plans were designed by using average computed tomography (CT) data sets created from 4D CT data to obtain nominal dose distributions. The motion interplay effect was simulated by assigning each spot in the static plan delivery sequence to 1 of 10 respiratory-phase CTs, using the actual patient breathing trace and specifications of a synchrotron-based proton system. Dose distributions for individual phases were deformed onto the space of the average CT and summed to produce the accumulated dose distribution, whose dose-volume histogram was compared with the one from the static plan. RESULTS: Tumor motion had minimal impact on the internal target volume hot spot (D2), which deviated by <3% from the nominal values of the static plans. The cold spot (D98) was also minimally affected, except in 2 patients with diaphragmatic tumor motion exceeding 10 mm. The impact on tumor coverage was more pronounced with respect to the V99 rather than the V95. Decreases of 10% to 49% in the V99 occurred in multiple patients for whom the beam paths traversed the lung-diaphragm interface and were, therefore, more sensitive to respiration-induced changes in the water equivalent path length. Fractionation alone apparently did not mitigate the interplay effect beyond 6 fractions. CONCLUSION: The interplay effect is not a concern when delivering scanning proton beams to younger pediatric patients with tumors located in the retroperitoneal space and tumor motion of <5 mm. Children and adolescents with diaphragmatic tumor motion exceeding 10 mm require special attention, because significant declines in target coverage and dose homogeneity were seen in simulated treatments of such patients.
Authors: Hungcheng Chen; Andrew Wu; Edward D Brandner; Dwight E Heron; M Saiful Huq; Ning J Yue; Wen-Cheng Chen Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stefan Klein; Marius Staring; Keelin Murphy; Max A Viergever; Josien P W Pluim Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Jinsoo Uh; Matthew J Krasin; Yimei Li; Xingyu Li; Christopher Tinkle; John T Lucas; Thomas E Merchant; Chiaho Hua Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 8.013
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