1
|
Zhang R, Mu D, Ma Q, Wan L, Xiao P, Qi P, Liu G, Zhang S, Yang K, Yang Z, Xie Q. Proton spot dose estimation based on positron activity distributions with neural network. Med Phys 2024. [PMID: 38984805 DOI: 10.1002/mp.17297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2023] [Revised: 04/23/2024] [Accepted: 06/20/2024] [Indexed: 07/11/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Positron emission tomography (PET) has been investigated for its ability to reconstruct proton-induced positron activity distributions in proton therapy. This technique holds potential for range verification in clinical practice. Recently, deep learning-based dose estimation from positron activity distributions shows promise for in vivo proton dose monitoring and guided proton therapy. PURPOSE This study evaluates the effectiveness of three classical neural network models, recurrent neural network (RNN), U-Net, and Transformer, for proton dose estimating. It also investigates the characteristics of these models, providing valuable insights for selecting the appropriate model in clinical practice. METHODS Proton dose calculations for spot beams were simulated using Geant4. Computed tomography (CT) images from four head cases were utilized, with three for training neural networks and the remaining one for testing. The neural networks were trained with one-dimensional (1D) positron activity distributions as inputs and generated 1D dose distributions as outputs. The impact of the number of training samples on the networks was examined, and their dose prediction performance in both homogeneous brain and heterogeneous nasopharynx sites was evaluated. Additionally, the effect of positron activity distribution uncertainty on dose prediction performance was investigated. To quantitatively evaluate the models, mean relative error (MRE) and absolute range error (ARE) were used as evaluation metrics. RESULTS The U-Net exhibited a notable advantage in range verification with a smaller number of training samples, achieving approximately 75% of AREs below 0.5 mm using only 500 training samples. The networks performed better in the homogeneous brain site compared to the heterogeneous nasopharyngeal site. In the homogeneous brain site, all networks exhibited small AREs, with approximately 90% of the AREs below 0.5 mm. The Transformer exhibited the best overall dose distribution prediction, with approximately 92% of MREs below 3%. In the heterogeneous nasopharyngeal site, all networks demonstrated acceptable AREs, with approximately 88% of AREs below 3 mm. The Transformer maintained the best overall dose distribution prediction, with approximately 85% of MREs below 5%. The performance of all three networks in dose prediction declined as the uncertainty of positron activity distribution increased, and the Transformer consistently outperformed the other networks in all cases. CONCLUSIONS Both the U-Net and the Transformer have certain advantages in the proton dose estimation task. The U-Net proves well suited for range verification with a small training sample size, while the Transformer outperforms others at dose-guided proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruilin Zhang
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Dengyun Mu
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Qiuhui Ma
- School of Artificial Intelligence and Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Lin Wan
- School of Software Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Peng Xiao
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- Wuhan National Laboratory of Optoelectronics, Wuhan, China
- Department of Electronic Engineering and Information Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
| | - Pengyuan Qi
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- Hubei Key Laboratory of Precision Radiation Oncology, Wuhan, China
- Institute of Radiation Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Gang Liu
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- Hubei Key Laboratory of Precision Radiation Oncology, Wuhan, China
- Institute of Radiation Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Sheng Zhang
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- Hubei Key Laboratory of Precision Radiation Oncology, Wuhan, China
- Institute of Radiation Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Kunyu Yang
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- Hubei Key Laboratory of Precision Radiation Oncology, Wuhan, China
- Institute of Radiation Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Zhiyong Yang
- Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- Hubei Key Laboratory of Precision Radiation Oncology, Wuhan, China
- Institute of Radiation Oncology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Qingguo Xie
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
- Wuhan National Laboratory of Optoelectronics, Wuhan, China
- Department of Electronic Engineering and Information Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tarp IS, Taasti VT, Jensen MF, Vestergaard A, Jensen K. Benefit of range uncertainty reduction in robust optimisation for proton therapy of brain, head-and-neck and breast cancer patients. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 31:100632. [PMID: 39257572 PMCID: PMC11386293 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2024] [Revised: 08/14/2024] [Accepted: 08/18/2024] [Indexed: 09/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and Purpose The primary cause of range uncertainty in proton therapy is inaccuracy in estimating the stopping-power ratio from computed tomography. This study examined the impact on dose-volume metrics by reducing range uncertainty in robust optimisation for a diverse patient cohort and determined the level of range uncertainty that resulted in a relevant reduction in doses to organs-at-risk (OARs). Materials and Methods The effect of reducing range uncertainty on OAR doses was evaluated by robustly optimising six proton plans with varying range uncertainty levels (ranging from 3.5% in the original plan to 1.0%), keeping setup uncertainty fixed. All plans used the initial clinical treatment plan's beam directions and optimisation objectives and were optimised until a clinically acceptable plan was achieved across all setup and range scenarios. The effect of reduced range uncertainty on dose-volume metrics for OARs near the target was evaluated. This study included 30 brain cancer patients, as well as five head-and-neck and five breast cancer patients, investigating the relevance of reducing range uncertainty when different setup uncertainties were used. Results Lowering range uncertainty slightly reduced the nominal dose to surrounding tissue. For body volume receiving 80% of the prescribed dose, reducing range uncertainty from 3.5% to 2.0% resulted in a median decrease of 4 cm3 for the brain, 17 cm3 for head-and-neck, and 27 cm3 for breast cancer patients. Conclusions Reducing range uncertainty in robust optimisation showed a reduction in dose to OARs. The clinical relevance depends on the affected organs and the clinical dose constraints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivanka Sojat Tarp
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Vicki Trier Taasti
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Anne Vestergaard
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Kenneth Jensen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Koh CWY, Lew KS, Wibawa A, Master Z, Yeap PL, Chua CGA, Lee JCL, Tan HQ, Park SY. First clinical experience following the consensus guide for calibrating a proton stopping power ratio curve in a new proton centre. Phys Med 2024; 120:103341. [PMID: 38554639 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Revised: 03/07/2024] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This work introduces the first assessment of CT calibration following the ESTRO's consensus guidelines and validating the HLUT through the irradiation of biological material. METHODS Two electron density phantoms were scanned with two CT scanners using two CT scan energies. The stopping power ratio (SPR) and mass density (MD) HLUTs for different CT scan energies were derived using Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. The comparison metric in this work is based on the Water-Equivalent Thickness (WET) difference between the treatment planning system and biological irradiation measurement. The SPR HLUTs were compared between the two calibration methods. To assess the accuracy of using MD HLUT for dose calculation in the treatment planning system, MD vs SPR HLUT was compared. Lastly, the feasibility of using a single SPR HLUT to replace two different energy CT scans was explored. RESULTS The results show a WET difference of less than 3.5% except for the result in the Bone region between Schneider's and ESTRO's methods. Comparing MD and SPR HLUT, the results from MD HLUT show less than a 3.5% difference except for the Bone region. However, the SPR HLUT shows a lower mean absolute percentage difference as compared to MD HLUT between the measured and calculated WET difference. Lastly, it is possible to use a single SPR HLUT for two different CT scan energies since both WET differences are within 3.5%. CONCLUSION This is the first report on calibrating an HLUT following the ESTRO's guidelines. While our result shows incremental improvement in range uncertainty using the ESTRO's guideline, the prescriptional approach of the guideline does promote harmonization of CT calibration protocols between different centres.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kah Seng Lew
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore
| | - Andrew Wibawa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore
| | - Zubin Master
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ping Lin Yeap
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - James Cheow Lei Lee
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore
| | - Hong Qi Tan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Oncology Academic Clinical Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
| | - Sung Yong Park
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Oncology Academic Clinical Programme, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tattenberg S, Liu P, Mulhem A, Cong X, Thome C, Ding X. Impact of and interplay between proton arc therapy and range uncertainties in proton therapy for head-and-neck cancer. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:055015. [PMID: 38324904 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad2718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/07/2024] [Indexed: 02/09/2024]
Abstract
Objective. Proton therapy reduces the integral dose to the patient compared to conventional photon treatments. However,in vivoproton range uncertainties remain a considerable hurdle. Range uncertainty reduction benefits depend on clinical practices. During intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), the target is irradiated from only a few directions, but proton arc therapy (PAT), for which the target is irradiated from dozens of angles, may see clinical implementation by the time considerable range uncertainty reductions are achieved. It is therefore crucial to determine the impact of PAT on range uncertainty reduction benefits.Approach. For twenty head-and-neck cancer patients, four different treatment plans were created: an IMPT and a PAT treatment plan assuming current clinical range uncertainties of 3.5% (IMPT3.5%and PAT3.5%), and an IMPT and a PAT treatment plan assuming that range uncertainties can be reduced to 1% (IMPT1%and PAT1%). Plans were evaluated with respect to target coverage and organ-at-risk doses as well as normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) for parotid glands (endpoint: parotid gland flow <25%) and larynx (endpoint: larynx edema).Main results. Implementation of PAT (IMPT3.5%-PAT3.5%) reduced mean NTCPs in the nominal and worst-case scenario by 3.2 percentage points (pp) and 4.2 pp, respectively. Reducing range uncertainties from 3.5% to 1% during use of IMPT (IMPT3.5%-IMPT1%) reduced evaluated NTCPs by 0.9 pp and 2.0 pp. Benefits of range uncertainty reductions subsequently to PAT implementation (PAT3.5%-PAT1%) were 0.2 pp and 1.0 pp, with considerably higher benefits in bilateral compared to unilateral cases.Significance. The mean clinical benefit of implementing PAT was more than twice as high as the benefit of a 3.5%-1% range uncertainty reduction. Range uncertainty reductions are expected to remain beneficial even after PAT implementation, especially in cases with target positions allowing for full leveraging of the higher number of gantry angles during PAT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Tattenberg
- Laurentian University, Sudbury P3E 2C6, Ontario, Canada
- Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Sudbury P3E 2C6, Ontario, Canada
- TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver V6T 2A3, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Peilin Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont University Hospital, Corewell Health, 3601 W 13 Mile Road, MI, United States of America
| | - Anthony Mulhem
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont University Hospital, Corewell Health, 3601 W 13 Mile Road, MI, United States of America
- Department of Human Biology, Michigan State University, Natural Science Building, 288 Farm Ln, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States of America
| | - Xiaoda Cong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont University Hospital, Corewell Health, 3601 W 13 Mile Road, MI, United States of America
| | - Christopher Thome
- Laurentian University, Sudbury P3E 2C6, Ontario, Canada
- Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Sudbury P3E 2C6, Ontario, Canada
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont University Hospital, Corewell Health, 3601 W 13 Mile Road, MI, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Taasti VT, Decabooter E, Eekers D, Compter I, Rinaldi I, Bogowicz M, van der Maas T, Kneepkens E, Schiffelers J, Stultiens C, Hendrix N, Pijls M, Emmah R, Fonseca GP, Unipan M, van Elmpt W. Clinical benefit of range uncertainty reduction in proton treatment planning based on dual-energy CT for neuro-oncological patients. Br J Radiol 2023; 96:20230110. [PMID: 37493227 PMCID: PMC10461272 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20230110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2023] [Revised: 06/01/2023] [Accepted: 06/14/2023] [Indexed: 07/27/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Several studies have shown that dual-energy CT (DECT) can lead to improved accuracy for proton range estimation. This study investigated the clinical benefit of reduced range uncertainty, enabled by DECT, in robust optimisation for neuro-oncological patients. METHODS DECT scans for 27 neuro-oncological patients were included. Commercial software was applied to create stopping-power ratio (SPR) maps based on the DECT scan. Two plans were robustly optimised on the SPR map, keeping the beam and plan settings identical to the clinical plan. One plan was robustly optimised and evaluated with a range uncertainty of 3% (as used clinically; denoted 3%-plan); the second plan applied a range uncertainty of 2% (2%-plan). Both plans were clinical acceptable and optimal. The dose-volume histogram parameters were compared between the two plans. Two experienced neuro-radiation oncologists determined the relevant dose difference for each organ-at-risk (OAR). Moreover, the OAR toxicity levels were assessed. RESULTS For 24 patients, a dose reduction >0.5/1 Gy (relevant dose difference depending on the OAR) was seen in one or more OARs for the 2%-plan; e.g. for brainstem D0.03cc in 10 patients, and hippocampus D40% in 6 patients. Furthermore, 12 patients had a reduction in toxicity level for one or two OARs, showing a clear benefit for the patient. CONCLUSION Robust optimisation with reduced range uncertainty allows for reduction of OAR toxicity, providing a rationale for clinical implementation. Based on these results, we have clinically introduced DECT-based proton treatment planning for neuro-oncological patients, accompanied with a reduced range uncertainty of 2%. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE This study shows the clinical benefit of range uncertainty reduction from 3% to 2% in robustly optimised proton plans. A dose reduction to one or more OARs was seen for 89% of the patients, and 44% of the patients had an expected toxicity level decrease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vicki Trier Taasti
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Decabooter
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Daniëlle Eekers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Inge Compter
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Ilaria Rinaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Marta Bogowicz
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Tim van der Maas
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Kneepkens
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jacqueline Schiffelers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Cissy Stultiens
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Nicole Hendrix
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Mirthe Pijls
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Rik Emmah
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Gabriel Paiva Fonseca
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Mirko Unipan
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter van Elmpt
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Marants R, Tattenberg S, Scholey J, Kaza E, Miao X, Benkert T, Magneson O, Fischer J, Vinas L, Niepel K, Bortfeld T, Landry G, Parodi K, Verburg J, Sudhyadhom A. Validation of an MR-based multimodal method for molecular composition and proton stopping power ratio determination using ex vivo animal tissues and tissue-mimicking phantoms. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:10.1088/1361-6560/ace876. [PMID: 37463589 PMCID: PMC10645122 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ace876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 07/20/2023]
Abstract
Objective. Range uncertainty in proton therapy is an important factor limiting clinical effectiveness. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can measure voxel-wise molecular composition and, when combined with kilovoltage CT (kVCT), accurately determine mean ionization potential (Im), electron density, and stopping power ratio (SPR). We aimed to develop a novel MR-based multimodal method to accurately determine SPR and molecular compositions. This method was evaluated in tissue-mimicking andex vivoporcine phantoms, and in a brain radiotherapy patient.Approach. Four tissue-mimicking phantoms with known compositions, two porcine tissue phantoms, and a brain cancer patient were imaged with kVCT and MRI. Three imaging-based values were determined: SPRCM(CT-based Multimodal), SPRMM(MR-based Multimodal), and SPRstoich(stoichiometric calibration). MRI was used to determine two tissue-specific quantities of the Bethe Bloch equation (Im, electron density) to compute SPRCMand SPRMM. Imaging-based SPRs were compared to measurements for phantoms in a proton beam using a multilayer ionization chamber (SPRMLIC).Main results. Root mean square errors relative to SPRMLICwere 0.0104(0.86%), 0.0046(0.45%), and 0.0142(1.31%) for SPRCM, SPRMM, and SPRstoich, respectively. The largest errors were in bony phantoms, while soft tissue and porcine tissue phantoms had <1% errors across all SPR values. Relative to known physical molecular compositions, imaging-determined compositions differed by approximately ≤10%. In the brain case, the largest differences between SPRstoichand SPRMMwere in bone and high lipids/fat tissue. The magnitudes and trends of these differences matched phantom results.Significance. Our MR-based multimodal method determined molecular compositions and SPR in various tissue-mimicking phantoms with high accuracy, as confirmed with proton beam measurements. This method also revealed significant SPR differences compared to stoichiometric kVCT-only calculation in a clinical case, with the largest differences in bone. These findings support that including MRI in proton therapy treatment planning can improve the accuracy of calculated SPR values and reduce range uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raanan Marants
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Sebastian Tattenberg
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Garching, Germany
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Jessica Scholey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Evangelia Kaza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Xin Miao
- Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | | | - Olivia Magneson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Jade Fischer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Medical Physics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Luciano Vinas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America
| | - Katharina Niepel
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Garching, Germany
| | - Thomas Bortfeld
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Guillaume Landry
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Katia Parodi
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Garching, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Joost Verburg
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Atchar Sudhyadhom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Peters N, Trier Taasti V, Ackermann B, Bolsi A, Vallhagen Dahlgren C, Ellerbrock M, Fracchiolla F, Gomà C, Góra J, Cambraia Lopes P, Rinaldi I, Salvo K, Sojat Tarp I, Vai A, Bortfeld T, Lomax A, Richter C, Wohlfahrt P. Consensus guide on CT-based prediction of stopping-power ratio using a Hounsfield look-up table for proton therapy. Radiother Oncol 2023; 184:109675. [PMID: 37084884 PMCID: PMC10351362 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109675] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Revised: 03/08/2023] [Accepted: 04/10/2023] [Indexed: 04/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Studies have shown large variations in stopping-power ratio (SPR) prediction from computed tomography (CT) across European proton centres. To standardise this process, a step-by-step guide on specifying a Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) is presented here. MATERIALS AND METHODS The HLUT specification process is divided into six steps: Phantom setup, CT acquisition, CT number extraction, SPR determination, HLUT specification, and HLUT validation. Appropriate CT phantoms have a head- and body-sized part, with tissue-equivalent inserts in regard to X-ray and proton interactions. CT numbers are extracted from a region-of-interest covering the inner 70% of each insert in-plane and several axial CT slices in scan direction. For optimal HLUT specification, the SPR of phantom inserts is measured in a proton beam and the SPR of tabulated human tissues is computed stoichiometrically at 100 MeV. Including both phantom inserts and tabulated human tissues increases HLUT stability. Piecewise linear regressions are performed between CT numbers and SPRs for four tissue groups (lung, adipose, soft tissue, and bone) and then connected with straight lines. Finally, a thorough but simple validation is performed. RESULTS The best practices and individual challenges are explained comprehensively for each step. A well-defined strategy for specifying the connection points between the individual line segments of the HLUT is presented. The guide was tested exemplarily on three CT scanners from different vendors, proving its feasibility. CONCLUSION The presented step-by-step guide for CT-based HLUT specification with recommendations and examples can contribute to reduce inter-centre variations in SPR prediction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nils Peters
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Germany; Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Vicki Trier Taasti
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Benjamin Ackermann
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Alessandra Bolsi
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | | | - Malte Ellerbrock
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Francesco Fracchiolla
- Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari (APSS) Protontherapy Department, Trento, Italy
| | - Carles Gomà
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Joanna Góra
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | | | - Ilaria Rinaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Koen Salvo
- AZ Sint-Maarten, Department of Radiotherapy, Mechelen, Belgium
| | - Ivanka Sojat Tarp
- Aarhus University Hospital, Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Alessandro Vai
- Radiotherapy Department, Center for National Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), 27100 Pavia, Italy
| | - Thomas Bortfeld
- Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Antony Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Christian Richter
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Patrick Wohlfahrt
- Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Meric I, Alagoz E, Hysing LB, Kögler T, Lathouwers D, Lionheart WRB, Mattingly J, Obhodas J, Pausch G, Pettersen HES, Ratliff HN, Rovituso M, Schellhammer SM, Setterdahl LM, Skjerdal K, Sterpin E, Sudac D, Turko JA, Ytre-Hauge KS. A hybrid multi-particle approach to range assessment-based treatment verification in particle therapy. Sci Rep 2023; 13:6709. [PMID: 37185591 PMCID: PMC10130067 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-33777-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 04/18/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Particle therapy (PT) used for cancer treatment can spare healthy tissue and reduce treatment toxicity. However, full exploitation of the dosimetric advantages of PT is not yet possible due to range uncertainties, warranting development of range-monitoring techniques. This study proposes a novel range-monitoring technique introducing the yet unexplored concept of simultaneous detection and imaging of fast neutrons and prompt-gamma rays produced in beam-tissue interactions. A quasi-monolithic organic detector array is proposed, and its feasibility for detecting range shifts in the context of proton therapy is explored through Monte Carlo simulations of realistic patient models and detector resolution effects. The results indicate that range shifts of [Formula: see text] can be detected at relatively low proton intensities ([Formula: see text] protons/spot) when spatial information obtained through imaging of both particle species are used simultaneously. This study lays the foundation for multi-particle detection and imaging systems in the context of range verification in PT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilker Meric
- Department of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
| | - Enver Alagoz
- Department of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway
| | - Liv B Hysing
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7803, 5020, Bergen, Norway
| | - Toni Kögler
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.
| | | | | | - John Mattingly
- Department of Nuclear Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
| | | | - Guntram Pausch
- Target Systemelektronik GmbH & Co. KG, Wuppertal, Germany
| | - Helge E S Pettersen
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Hunter N Ratliff
- Department of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway
| | | | - Sonja M Schellhammer
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Lena M Setterdahl
- Department of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway
| | - Kyrre Skjerdal
- Department of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway
| | - Edmond Sterpin
- Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Joseph A Turko
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Kristian S Ytre-Hauge
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7803, 5020, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Nabha R, De Saint-Hubert M, Marichal J, Esser J, Van Hoey O, Bäumer C, Verbeek N, Struelens L, Sterpin E, Tabury K, Marek L, Granja C, Timmermann B, Vanhavere F. Biophysical characterization of collimated and uncollimated fields in pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68. [PMID: 36821866 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acbe8d] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 02/25/2023]
Abstract
Objective. The lateral dose fall-off in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique remains the preferred choice for sparing adjacent organs at risk as opposed to the distal edge due to the proton range uncertainties and potentially high relative biological effectiveness. However, because of the substantial spot size along with the scattering in the air and in the patient, the lateral penumbra in PBS can be degraded. Combining PBS with an aperture can result in a sharper dose fall-off, particularly for shallow targets.Approach. The aim of this work was to characterize the radiation fields produced by collimated and uncollimated 100 and 140 MeV proton beams, using Monte Carlo simulations and measurements with a MiniPIX-Timepix detector. The dose and the linear energy transfer (LET) were then coupled with publishedin silicobiophysical models to elucidate the potential biological effects of collimated and uncollimated fields.Main results. Combining an aperture with PBS reduced the absorbed dose in the lateral fall-off and out-of-field by 60%. However, the results also showed that the absolute frequency-averaged LET (LETF) values increased by a maximum of 3.5 keVμm-1in collimated relative to uncollimated fields, while the dose-averaged LET (LETD) increased by a maximum of 7 keVμm-1. Despite the higher LET values produced by collimated fields, the predicted DNA damage yields remained lower, owing to the large dose reduction.Significance. This work demonstrated the dosimetric advantages of combining an aperture with PBS coupled with lower DNA damage induction. A methodology for calculating dose in water derived from measurements with a silicon-based detector was also presented. This work is the first to demonstrate experimentally the increase in LET caused by combining PBS with aperture, and to assess the potential DNA damage which is the initial step in the cascade of events leading to the majority of radiation-induced biological effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Racell Nabha
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry and Calibration Expert Group, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium.,KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Marijke De Saint-Hubert
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry and Calibration Expert Group, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium
| | | | - Johannes Esser
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Olivier Van Hoey
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry and Calibration Expert Group, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium
| | - Christian Bäumer
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.,TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, Dortmund, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Nico Verbeek
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Lara Struelens
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry and Calibration Expert Group, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium
| | - Edmond Sterpin
- KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium.,UCLouvain, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, MIRO Lab, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Kevin Tabury
- Radiobiology Unit, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium
| | | | | | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Filip Vanhavere
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry and Calibration Expert Group, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium.,KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bobić M, Lalonde A, Nesteruk KP, Lee H, Nenoff L, Gorissen BL, Bertolet A, Busse PM, Chan AW, Winey BA, Sharp GC, Verburg JM, Lomax AJ, Paganetti H. Large anatomical changes in head-and-neck cancers – a dosimetric comparison of online and offline adaptive proton therapy. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 40:100625. [PMID: 37090849 PMCID: PMC10120292 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100625] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/30/2023] [Indexed: 04/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose This work evaluates an online adaptive (OA) workflow for head-and-neck (H&N) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and compares it with full offline replanning (FOR) in patients with large anatomical changes. Methods IMPT treatment plans are created retrospectively for a cohort of eight H&N cancer patients that previously required replanning during the course of treatment due to large anatomical changes. Daily cone-beam CTs (CBCT) are acquired and corrected for scatter, resulting in 253 analyzed fractions. To simulate the FOR workflow, nominal plans are created on the planning-CT and delivered until a repeated-CT is acquired; at this point, a new plan is created on the repeated-CT. To simulate the OA workflow, nominal plans are created on the planning-CT and adapted at each fraction using a simple beamlet weight-tuning technique. Dose distributions are calculated on the CBCTs with Monte Carlo for both delivery methods. The total treatment dose is accumulated on the planning-CT. Results Daily OA improved target coverage compared to FOR despite using smaller target margins. In the high-risk CTV, the median D98 degradation was 1.1 % and 2.1 % for OA and FOR, respectively. In the low-risk CTV, the same metrics yield 1.3 % and 5.2 % for OA and FOR, respectively. Smaller setup margins of OA reduced the dose to all OARs, which was most relevant for the parotid glands. Conclusion Daily OA can maintain prescription doses and constraints over the course of fractionated treatment, even in cases of large anatomical changes, reducing the necessity for manual replanning in H&N IMPT.
Collapse
|
11
|
Potential benefits of using radioactive ion beams for range margin reduction in carbon ion therapy. Sci Rep 2022; 12:21792. [PMID: 36526710 PMCID: PMC9758201 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-26290-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Sharp dose gradients and high biological effectiveness make ions such as 12C an ideal tool to treat deep-seated tumors, however, at the same time, sensitive to errors in the range prediction. Tumor safety margins mitigate these uncertainties, but during the irradiation they lead to unavoidable damage to the surrounding healthy tissue. To fully exploit the Bragg peak benefits, a large effort is put into establishing precise range verification methods. Despite positron emission tomography being widely in use for this purpose in 12C therapy, the low count rates, biological washout, and broad activity distribution still limit its precision. Instead, radioactive beams used directly for treatment would yield an improved signal and a closer match with the dose fall-off, potentially enabling precise in vivo beam range monitoring. We have performed a treatment planning study to estimate the possible impact of the reduced range uncertainties, enabled by radioactive 11C ions treatments, on sparing critical organs in tumor proximity. Compared to 12C treatments, (i) annihilation maps for 11C ions can reflect sub- millimeter shifts in dose distributions in the patient, (ii) outcomes of treatment planning with 11C significantly improve and (iii) less severe toxicities for serial and parallel critical organs can be expected.
Collapse
|