1
|
Marc L, Unkelbach J. Optimal use of limited proton resources for liver cancer patients in combined proton-photon treatments. Phys Med Biol 2025; 70:025020. [PMID: 39569865 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad94c8] [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: 06/04/2024] [Accepted: 11/19/2024] [Indexed: 11/22/2024]
Abstract
Objective. Liver cancer patients may benefit from proton therapy through increase of the tumor control probability (TCP). However, proton therapy is a limited resource and may not be available for all patients. We consider combined proton-photon liver SBRT treatments (CPPT) where only some fractions are delivered with protons. It is investigated how limited proton fractions can be used best for individual patients and optimally allocated within a patient group.Approach. Photon and proton treatment plans were created for five liver cancer patients. In CPPT, limited proton fractions may be optimally exploited by increasing the fraction dose compared to the photon fraction dose. To determine a patient's optimal proton and photon fraction doses, we maximize the target biologically effective dose (BED) while constraining the mean normal liver BED, which leads to an up- or downscaling of the proton and photon plan, respectively. The resulting CPPT balances the benefits of fractionation in the normal liver versus exploiting the superior proton dose distributions. After converting the target BED to TCP, the optimal number of proton fractions per patient is determined by maximizing the overall TCP of the patient group.Main results. For the individual patient, a CPPT treatment that delivers a higher fraction dose with protons than photons allows for dose escalation in the target compared to delivering the same proton and photon fraction dose. On the level of a patient group, CPPT may allow to distribute limited proton slots over several patients. Through an optimal use and allocation of proton fractions, CPPT may increase the average patient group TCP compared to a proton patient selection strategy where patients receive single-modality proton or photon treatments.Significance. Limited proton resources can be optimally exploited via CPPT by increasing the target dose in proton fractions and allocating available proton slots to patients with the highest TCP increase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Marc
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jan Unkelbach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Torelli N, Bicker Y, Marc L, Fabiano S, Unkelbach J. A new approach to combined proton-photon therapy for metastatic cancer patients. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:145008. [PMID: 38942008 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad5d48] [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: 03/15/2024] [Accepted: 06/28/2024] [Indexed: 06/30/2024]
Abstract
Objective.Proton therapy is a limited resource and is typically not available to metastatic cancer patients. Combined proton-photon therapy (CPPT), where most fractions are delivered with photons and only few with protons, represents an approach to distribute proton resources over a larger patient population. In this study, we consider stereotactic radiotherapy of multiple brain or liver metastases, and develop an approach to optimally take advantage of a single proton fraction by optimizing the proton and photon dose contributions to each individual metastasis.Approach.CPPT treatments must balance two competing goals: (1) deliver a larger dose in the proton fractions to reduce integral dose, and (2) fractionate the dose in the normal tissue between metastases, which requires using the photon fractions. Such CPPT treatments are generated by simultaneously optimizing intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans based on their cumulative biologically effective dose (BEDα/β). The dose contributions of the proton and photon fractions to each individual metastasis are handled as additional optimization variables in the optimization problem. The method is demonstrated for two patients with 29 and 30 brain metastases, and two patients with 4 and 3 liver metastases.Main results.Optimized CPPT plans increase the proton dose contribution to most of the metastases, while using photons to fractionate the dose around metastases which are large or located close to critical structures. On average, the optimized CPPT plans reduce the mean brain BED2by 29% and the mean liver BED4by 42% compared to IMRT-only plans. Thereby, the CPPT plans approach the dosimetric quality of IMPT-only plans, for which the mean brain BED2and mean liver BED4are reduced by 28% and 58%, respectively, compared to IMRT-only plans.Significance.CPPT with optimized proton and photon dose contributions to individual metastases may benefit selected metastatic cancer patients without tying up major proton resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathan Torelli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Yves Bicker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Louise Marc
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Silvia Fabiano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jan Unkelbach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Amstutz F, Krcek R, Bachtiary B, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Unkelbach J, Zhang Y. Treatment planning comparison for head and neck cancer between photon, proton, and combined proton-photon therapy - From a fixed beam line to an arc. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:109973. [PMID: 37913953 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2023] [Revised: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This study investigates whether combined proton-photon therapy (CPPT) improves treatment plan quality compared to single-modality intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Different proton beam arrangements for CPPT and IMPT are compared, which could be of specific interest concerning potential future upright-positioned treatments. Furthermore, it is evaluated if CPPT benefits remain under inter-fractional anatomical changes for HNC treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS Five HNC patients with a planning CT and multiple (4-7) repeated CTs were studied. CPPT with simultaneously optimized photon and proton fluence, single-modality IMPT, and IMRT treatment plans were optimized on the planning CT and then recalculated and reoptimized on each repeated CT. For CPPT and IMPT, plans with different degrees of freedom for the proton beams were optimized. Fixed horizontal proton beam line (FHB), gantry-like, and arc-like plans were compared. RESULTS The target coverage for CPPT without adaptation is insufficient (average V95%=88.4 %), while adapted plans can recover the initial treatment plan quality for target (average V95%=95.5 %) and organs-at-risk. CPPT with increased proton beam flexibility increases plan quality and reduces normal tissue complication probability of Xerostomia and Dysphagia. On average, Xerostomia NTCP reductions compared to IMRT are -2.7 %/-3.4 %/-5.0 % for CPPT FHB/CPPT Gantry/CPPT Arc. The differences for IMPT FHB/IMPT Gantry/IMPT Arc are + 0.8 %/-0.9 %/-4.3 %. CONCLUSION CPPT for HNC needs adaptive treatments. Increasing proton beam flexibility in CPPT, either by using a gantry or an upright-positioned patient, improves treatment plan quality. However, the photon component is substantially reduced, therefore, the balance between improved plan quality and costs must be further determined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Amstutz
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Reinhardt Krcek
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Damien C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Antony J Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland; Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jan Unkelbach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Missimer JH, Emert F, Lomax AJ, Weber DC. Automatic lung segmentation of magnetic resonance images: A new approach applied to healthy volunteers undergoing enhanced Deep-Inspiration-Breath-Hold for motion-mitigated 4D proton therapy of lung tumors. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 29:100531. [PMID: 38292650 PMCID: PMC10825631 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100531] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2023] [Revised: 12/20/2023] [Accepted: 12/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Respiratory suppression techniques represent an effective motion mitigation strategy for 4D-irradiation of lung tumors with protons. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based study applied and analyzed methods for this purpose, including enhanced Deep-Inspiration-Breath-Hold (eDIBH). Twenty-one healthy volunteers (41-58 years) underwent thoracic MR scans in four imaging sessions containing two eDIBH-guided MRIs per session to simulate motion-dependent irradiation conditions. The automated MRI segmentation algorithm presented here was critical in determining the lung volumes (LVs) achieved during eDIBH. Materials and methods The study included 168 MRIs acquired under eDIBH conditions. The lung segmentation algorithm consisted of four analysis steps: (i) image preprocessing, (ii) MRI histogram analysis with thresholding, (iii) automatic segmentation, (iv) 3D-clustering. To validate the algorithm, 46 eDIBH-MRIs were manually contoured. Sørensen-Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) and relative deviations of LVs were determined as similarity measures. Assessment of intrasessional and intersessional LV variations and their differences provided estimates of statistical and systematic errors. Results Lung segmentation time for 100 2D-MRI planes was ∼ 10 s. Compared to manual lung contouring, the median DSC was 0.94 with a lower 95 % confidence level (CL) of 0.92. The relative volume deviations yielded a median value of 0.059 and 95 % CLs of -0.013 and 0.13. Artifact-based volume errors, mainly of the trachea, were estimated. Estimated statistical and systematic errors ranged between 6 and 8 %. Conclusions The presented analytical algorithm is fast, precise, and readily available. The results are comparable to time-consuming, manual segmentations and other automatic segmentation approaches. Post-processing to remove image artifacts is under development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John H. Missimer
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| | - Frank Emert
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
| | - Antony J. Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Damien C. Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wu X, Amstutz F, Weber DC, Unkelbach J, Lomax AJ, Zhang Y. Patient-specific quality assurance for deformable IMRT/IMPT dose accumulation: Proposition and validation of energy conservation based validation criterion. Med Phys 2023; 50:7130-7138. [PMID: 37345380 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2023] [Revised: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 06/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deformable image registration (DIR)-based dose accumulation (DDA) is regularly used in adaptive radiotherapy research. However, the applicability and reliability of DDA for direct clinical usage are still being debated. One primary concern is the validity of DDA, particularly for scenarios with substantial anatomical changes, for which energy-conservation problems were observed in conceptual studies. PURPOSE We present and validate an energy-conservation (EC)-based DDA validation workflow and further investigate its usefulness for actual patient data, specifically for lung cancer cases. METHODS For five non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, DDA based on five selective DIR methods were calculated for five different treatment plans, which include one intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT), two intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and two combined proton-photon therapy (CPPT) plans. All plans were optimized on the planning CT (planCT) acquired in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) and were re-optimized on the repeated DIBH CTs of three later fractions. The resulting fractional doses were warped back to the planCT using each DIR. An EC-based validation of the accumulation process was implemented and applied to all DDA results. Correlations between relative organ mass/volume variations and the extent of EC violation were then studied using Bayesian linear regression (BLR). RESULTS For most OARs, EC violation within 10% is observed. However, for the PTVs and GTVs with substantial regression, severe overestimation of the fractional energy was found regardless of treatment type and applied DIR method. BLR results show that EC violation is linearly correlated to the relative mass variation (R^2 > 0.95) and volume variation (R^2 > 0.60). CONCLUSION DDA results should be used with caution in regions with high mass/volume variation for intensity-based DIRs. EC-based validation is a useful approach to provide patient-specific quality assurance of the validity of DDA in radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Wu
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Information Technology & Electrical Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Florian Amstutz
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Damien C Weber
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Jan Unkelbach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Antony J Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Yan S, Ngoma TA, Ngwa W, Bortfeld TR. Global democratisation of proton radiotherapy. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:e245-e254. [PMID: 37269856 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00184-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2023] [Revised: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy is an advanced treatment option compared with conventional x-ray treatment, delivering much lower doses of radiation to healthy tissues surrounding the tumour. However, proton therapy is currently not widely available. In this Review, we summarise the evolution of proton therapy to date, together with the benefits to patients and society. These developments have led to an exponential growth in the number of hospitals using proton radiotherapy worldwide. However, the gap between the number of patients who should be treated with proton radiotherapy and those who have access to it remains large. We summarise the ongoing research and development that is contributing to closing this gap, including the improvement of treatment efficiency and efficacy, and advances in fixed-beam treatments that do not require an enormously large, heavy, and costly gantry. The ultimate goal of decreasing the size of proton therapy machines to fit into standard treatment rooms appears to be within reach, and we discuss future research and development opportunities to achieve this goal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susu Yan
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Twalib A Ngoma
- Department Clinical Oncology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| | - Wilfred Ngwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Information and Sciences, ICT University, Yaoundé, Cameroon
| | - Thomas R Bortfeld
- Division of Radiation Biophysics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Li W, Zhang W, Lin Y, Chen RC, Gao H. Fraction optimization for hybrid proton-photon treatment planning. Med Phys 2023. [PMID: 36786202 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Revised: 01/28/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hybrid proton-photon radiotherapy (RT) can provide better plan quality than proton or photon only RT, in terms of robustness of target coverage and sparing of organs-at-risk (OAR). PURPOSE This work develops a hybrid treatment planning method that can optimize the number of proton and photon fractions as well as proton and photon plan variables, so that the hybrid plans can be clinically delivered day-to-day using either proton or photon machine. METHODS In the new hybrid treatment planning method, the total dose distribution (sum of proton dose and photon dose) is optimized for robust target coverage and optimal OAR sparing, by jointly optimizing proton spots and photon fluences, while the target dose uniformity is also enforced individually on both proton dose and photon dose, so that the hybrid plans can be separately and robustly delivered on proton or photon machine. To ensure the target dose uniformity for proton and photon plans, the number of proton and photon fractions is explicitly modeled and optimized, so that the target dose for proton and photon dose components is constrained to be a constant fraction of the total prescription dose while the plan quality based on total dose is optimized. The feasibility of hybrid planning using the proposed method is validated with representative clinical cases including abdomen, lung, head-and-neck (HN), and brain. RESULTS For all cases, hybrid plans provided better overall plan quality and OAR sparing than proton-only or photon-only plans, better target dose uniformity and robustness than proton-only plans, quantified by treatment planning objectives and dosimetric parameters. Moreover, for HN and brain cases, hybrid plans also had better target coverage than photon-only plans. CONCLUSIONS We have developed a new hybrid treatment planning method that optimizes number of proton and photon fractions as well as proton spots and photon fluences, for generating hybrid plans that can be separately and robustly delivered on proton or photon machines. Preliminary results have demonstrated that hybrid plans generated by the new method have better plan quality than proton-only or photon-only plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wangyao Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Weijie Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Yuting Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Ronald C Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Hao Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mueller S, Guyer G, Volken W, Frei D, Torelli N, Aebersold DM, Manser P, Fix MK. Efficiency enhancements of a Monte Carlo beamlet based treatment planning process: implementation and parameter study. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68. [PMID: 36655485 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acb480] [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: 09/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
Objective.The computational effort to perform beamlet calculation, plan optimization and final dose calculation of a treatment planning process (TPP) generating intensity modulated treatment plans is enormous, especially if Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are used for dose calculation. The goal of this work is to improve the computational efficiency of a fully MC based TPP for static and dynamic photon, electron and mixed photon-electron treatment techniques by implementing multiple methods and studying the influence of their parameters.Approach.A framework is implemented calculating MC beamlets efficiently in parallel on each available CPU core. The user can specify the desired statistical uncertainty of the beamlets, a fractional sparse dose threshold to save beamlets in a sparse format and minimal distances to the PTV surface from which 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 (medium) or even 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 (large) voxels are merged. The compromise between final plan quality and computational efficiency of beamlet calculation and optimization is studied for several parameter values to find a reasonable trade-off. For this purpose, four clinical and one academic case are considered with different treatment techniques.Main results.Setting the statistical uncertainty to 5% (photon beamlets) and 15% (electron beamlets), the fractional sparse dose threshold relative to the maximal beamlet dose to 0.1% and minimal distances for medium and large voxels to the PTV to 1 cm and 2 cm, respectively, does not lead to substantial degradation in final plan quality compared to using 2.5% (photon beamlets) and 5% (electron beamlets) statistical uncertainty and no sparse format nor voxel merging. Only OAR sparing is slightly degraded. Furthermore, computation times are reduced by about 58% (photon beamlets), 88% (electron beamlets) and 96% (optimization).Significance.Several methods are implemented improving computational efficiency of beamlet calculation and plan optimization of a fully MC based TPP without substantial degradation in final plan quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - G Guyer
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - W Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - D Frei
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - N Torelli
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - D M Aebersold
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - P Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - M K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|