Stability of daily rectal movement and effectiveness of replanning protocols for sparing rectal doses based on the daily CT images during proton treatment for prostate cancer

A systematic review of volumetric image guidance in proton therapy

In recent years, proton therapy centres have begun to shift from conventional 2D-kV imaging to volumetric imaging systems for image guided proton therapy (IGPT). This is likely due to the increased commercial interest and availability of volumetric imaging systems, as well as the shift from passively scattered proton therapy to intensity modulated proton therapy. Currently, there is no standard modality for volumetric IGPT, leading to variation between different proton therapy centres. This article reviews the reported clinical use of volumetric IGPT, as available in published literature, and summarises their utilisation and workflow where possible. In addition, novel volumetric imaging systems are also briefly summarised highlighting their potential benefits for IGPT and the challenges that need to be overcome before they can be used clinically.

Dosimetric advantages of daily adaptive strategy in IMPT for high-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

To evaluate the dosimetric advantages of daily adaptive radiotherapy (DART) in intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for high‐risk prostate cancer by comparing estimated doses of the conventional non‐adaptive radiotherapy (NART) that irradiates according to an original treatment plan through the entire treatment and the DART that uses an adaptive treatment plan generated by using daily CT images acquired before each treatment.

Methods

Twenty‐three patients with prostate cancer were included. A treatment plan with 63 Gy (relative biological effectiveness (RBE)) in 21 fractions was generated using treatment planning computed tomography (CT) images assuming that all patients had high‐risk prostate cancer for which the clinical target volume (CTV) needs to include prostate and the seminal vesicle (SV) in our treatment protocol. Twenty‐one adaptive treatment plans for each patient (total 483 data sets) were generated using daily CT images, and dose distributions were calculated. Using a 3 mm set‐up uncertainty in the robust optimization, the doses to the CTV, prostate, SV, rectum, and bladder were compared.

Results

Estimated accumulated doses of NART and DART in the 23 patients were 60.81 ± 3.47 Gy (RBE) and 63.24 ± 1.04 Gy (RBE) for CTV D99 (p < 0.01), 62.99 ± 1.28 Gy (RBE) and 63.43 ± 1.33 Gy (RBE) for the prostate D99 (p = 0.2529), and 59.07 ± 5.19 Gy (RBE) and 63.17 ± 1.04 Gy (RBE) for SV D99 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between NART and DART in the estimated accumulated dose for the rectum and bladder.

Conclusion

Compared with the NART, DART was shown to be a useful approach that can maintain the dose coverage to the target without increasing the dose to the organs at risk (OAR) using the 3 mm set‐up uncertainty in the robust optimization in patients with high‐risk prostate cancer.