Zhiyong Yang1, Xiaodong Zhang2, Xianliang Wang3, X Ronald Zhu2, Brandon Gunn4, Steven J Frank4, Yu Chang5, Qin Li5, Kunyu Yang5, Gang Wu5, Li Liao6, Yupeng Li2, Mei Chen7, Heng Li8. 1. Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China; Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, China. 4. Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 5. Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 6. Global Oncology One, Houston, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 8. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, USA. Electronic address: hengli@JHU.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether multiple-CT (MCT) optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could improve plan robustness to anatomical changes and therefore reduce the additional need for adaptive planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients with head and neck cancer who underwent IMPT were included in this retrospective study. Each patient had primary planning CT (PCT), a first adaptive planning CT (ACT1), and a second adaptive planning CT (ACT2). Selective robust IMPT plans were generated using each CT data set (PCT, ACT1, and ACT2). Moreover, a MCT optimized plan was generated using the PCT and ACT1 data sets together. Dose distributions optimized using each of the four plans (PCT, ACT1, ACT2, and MCT plans) were re-calculated on ACT2 data. The doses to the target and to organs at risk were compared between optimization strategies. RESULTS: MCT plans for all patients met all target dose and organs-at-risk criteria for all three CT data sets. Target dose and organs-at-risk dose for PCT and ACT1 plans re-calculated on ACT2 data set were compromised, indicating the need for adaptive planning on ACT2 if PCT or ACT1 plans were used. The D98% of CTV1 and CTV3 of MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 were both above the coverage criteria. The CTV2 coverage of the MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 was worse than ACT2 plan. The MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 data set had lower chiasm, esophagus, and larynx doses than did PCT, ACT1, or ACT2 plans re-calculated on ACT2 data set. CONCLUSIONS: MCT optimization can improve plan robustness toward anatomical change and may reduce the number of plan adaptation for head and neck cancers.
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether multiple-CT (MCT) optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could improve plan robustness to anatomical changes and therefore reduce the additional need for adaptive planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients with head and neck cancer who underwent IMPT were included in this retrospective study. Each patient had primary planning CT (PCT), a first adaptive planning CT (ACT1), and a second adaptive planning CT (ACT2). Selective robust IMPT plans were generated using each CT data set (PCT, ACT1, and ACT2). Moreover, a MCT optimized plan was generated using the PCT and ACT1 data sets together. Dose distributions optimized using each of the four plans (PCT, ACT1, ACT2, and MCT plans) were re-calculated on ACT2 data. The doses to the target and to organs at risk were compared between optimization strategies. RESULTS: MCT plans for all patients met all target dose and organs-at-risk criteria for all three CT data sets. Target dose and organs-at-risk dose for PCT and ACT1 plans re-calculated on ACT2 data set were compromised, indicating the need for adaptive planning on ACT2 if PCT or ACT1 plans were used. The D98% of CTV1 and CTV3 of MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 were both above the coverage criteria. The CTV2 coverage of the MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 was worse than ACT2 plan. The MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 data set had lower chiasm, esophagus, and larynx doses than did PCT, ACT1, or ACT2 plans re-calculated on ACT2 data set. CONCLUSIONS: MCT optimization can improve plan robustness toward anatomical change and may reduce the number of plan adaptation for head and neck cancers.
Authors: Christina Hague; Marianne Aznar; Lei Dong; Alireza Fotouhi-Ghiam; Lip Wai Lee; Taoran Li; Alexander Lin; Matthew Lowe; John N Lukens; Andrew McPartlin; Shannon O'Reilly; Nick Slevin; Samuel Swisher-Mcclure; David Thomson; Marcel Van Herk; Catharine West; Wei Zou; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Nicolette Taku; Li Wang; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; G Brandon Gunn; William H Morrison; C David Fuller; Jack Phan; Jay P Reddy; Amy C Moreno; Michael T Spiotto; Gregory Chronowski; Shalin J Shah; Lauren L Mayo; Neil D Gross; Renata Ferrarotto; X Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang; Steven J Frank Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2021-06-04
Authors: Jianzhong Cao; Xiaodong Zhang; Bo Jiang; Jiayun Chen; Xiaochun Wang; Li Wang; Narayan Sahoo; X Ronald Zhu; Rong Ye; Pierre Blanchard; Adam S Garden; C David Fuller; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Yue-Houng Hu; Riley H Harper; Noelle C Deiter; Jaden D Evans; Anita Mahajan; Jon J Kruse; Daniel W Mundy Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2022-06-28
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