Arthur Lalonde1, Mislav Bobić2, Brian Winey3, Joost Verburg3, Gregory C Sharp3, Harald Paganetti3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. Electronic address: alalonde@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA; ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Setup variations and anatomical changes can severely affect the quality of head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments. The impact of these changes can be alleviated by increasing the plan's robustness a priori, or by adapting the plan online. This work compares these approaches in the context of head and neck IMPT. MATERIALS/ METHODS: A representative cohort of 10 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was evaluated. For each patient, three IMPT plans were created: 1- a classical robust optimization (cRO) plan optimized on the planning CT, 2- an anatomical robust optimization (aRO) plan additionally including the two first daily CBCTs and 3- a plan optimized without robustness constraints, but online-adapted (OA) daily, using a constrained spot intensity re-optimization technique only. RESULTS: The cumulative dose following OA fulfilled the clinical objective of both the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) coverage in all 10 patients, compared to 8 for aRO and 4 for cRO. aRO did not significantly increase the dose to most organs at risk compared to cRO, although the integral dose was higher. OA significantly reduced the integral dose to healthy tissues compared to both robust methods, while providing equivalent or superior target coverage. CONCLUSION: Using a simple spot intensity re-optimization, daily OA can achieve superior target coverage and lower dose to organs at risk than robust optimization methods.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Setup variations and anatomical changes can severely affect the quality of head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments. The impact of these changes can be alleviated by increasing the plan's robustness a priori, or by adapting the plan online. This work compares these approaches in the context of head and neck IMPT. MATERIALS/ METHODS: A representative cohort of 10 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was evaluated. For each patient, three IMPT plans were created: 1- a classical robust optimization (cRO) plan optimized on the planning CT, 2- an anatomical robust optimization (aRO) plan additionally including the two first daily CBCTs and 3- a plan optimized without robustness constraints, but online-adapted (OA) daily, using a constrained spot intensity re-optimization technique only. RESULTS: The cumulative dose following OA fulfilled the clinical objective of both the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) coverage in all 10 patients, compared to 8 for aRO and 4 for cRO. aRO did not significantly increase the dose to most organs at risk compared to cRO, although the integral dose was higher. OA significantly reduced the integral dose to healthy tissues compared to both robust methods, while providing equivalent or superior target coverage. CONCLUSION: Using a simple spot intensity re-optimization, daily OA can achieve superior target coverage and lower dose to organs at risk than robust optimization methods.
Authors: Bradley M Oborn; Stephen Dowdell; Peter E Metcalfe; Stuart Crozier; Radhe Mohan; Paul J Keall Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Yunhe Xie; El Hassane Bentefour; Guillaume Janssens; Julien Smeets; François Vander Stappen; Lucian Hotoiu; Lingshu Yin; Derek Dolney; Stephen Avery; Fionnbarr O'Grady; Damien Prieels; James McDonough; Timothy D Solberg; Robert A Lustig; Alexander Lin; Boon-Keng K Teo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Amy C Moreno; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller; Gary B Gunn; Jay P Reddy; William H Morrison; Tyler D Williamson; Emma B Holliday; Jack Phan; Pierre Blanchard Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Wei Chen; Jan Unkelbach; Alexei Trofimov; Thomas Madden; Hanne Kooy; Thomas Bortfeld; David Craft Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Nan Qin; Pablo Botas; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Jan Schuemann; Zhen Tian; Steve B Jiang; Harald Paganetti; Xun Jia Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Wei Liu; Steven J Frank; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; Peter C Park; Lei Dong; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Konrad P Nesteruk; Mislav Bobić; Arthur Lalonde; Brian A Winey; Antony J Lomax; Harald Paganetti Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-11-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Lena Nenoff; Gregory Buti; Mislav Bobić; Arthur Lalonde; Konrad P Nesteruk; Brian Winey; Gregory Charles Sharp; Atchar Sudhyadhom; Harald Paganetti Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-14 Impact factor: 6.575