The Optimal Timing for Off-line Adaptive Planning for Bilateral Head-and-Neck IMPT is Week 4

Analysis of the Rate of Re-planning in Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy

Purpose

Finite proton range affords improved dose conformality of radiation therapy when patient regions-of-interest geometries are well characterized. Substantial changes in patient anatomy necessitate re-planning (RP) to maintain effective, safe treatment. Regularly planned verification scanning (VS) is performed to ensure consistent treatment quality. Substantial resources, however, are required to conduct an effective proton plan verification program, which includes but is not limited to, additional computed tomography (CT) scanner time and dedicated personnel: radiation therapists, medical physicists, physicians, and medical dosimetrists.

Materials and Methods

Verification scans (VSs) and re-plans (RPs) of 711 patients treated with proton therapy between June 2015 and June 2018 were studied. All treatment RP was performed with the intent to maintain original plan integrity and coverage. The treatments were classified by anatomic site: brain, craniospinal, bone, spine, head and neck (H&N), lung or chest, breast, prostate, rectum, anus, pelvis, esophagus, liver, abdomen, and extremity. Within each group, the dates of initial simulation scan, number of VSs, number of fractions completed at the time of VS, and the frequency of RP were collected. Data were analyzed in terms of rate of RP and individual likelihood of RP.

Results

A total of 2196 VSs and 201 RPs were performed across all treatment sites. H&N and lung or chest disease sites represented the largest proportion of plan modifications in terms of rate of re-plan (RoR: 54% and 58%, respectively) and individual likelihood of RP on a per patient basis (likelihood of RP [RP%]: 46% and 39%, respectively). These sites required RP beyond 4 weeks of treatment, suggesting continued benefit for frequent, periodic VS. Disease sites in the lower pelvis demonstrated a low yield for RP per VS (0.01-0.02), suggesting that decreasing VS frequency, particularly late in treatment, may be reasonable.

Conclusions

A large degree of variation in RoR and individual RP% was observed between anatomic treatment sites. The present retrospective analysis provides data to help develop anatomic site–based VS protocols.

A Review of the Robust Optimization Process and Advances with Monte Carlo in the Proton Therapy Management of Head and Neck Tumors

In intensity-modulated proton therapy, robust optimization processes have been developed to manage uncertainties associated with (1) range, (2) setup, (3) anatomic changes, (4) dose calculation, and (5) biological effects. Here we review our experience using a robust optimization technique that directly incorporates range and setup uncertainties into the optimization process to manage those sources of uncertainty. We also review procedures for implementing adaptive planning to manage the anatomic uncertainties. Finally, we share some early experiences regarding the impact of uncertainties in dose calculation and biological effects, along with techniques to manage and potentially reduce these uncertainties.

Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Cancers

Because of its sharp lateral penumbra and steep distal fall-off, proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages over photon therapy. In head and neck cancer, proton therapy has been used for decades in the treatment of skull-base tumors. In recent years the use of proton therapy has been extended to numerous other disease sites, including nasopharynx, oropharynx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, periorbital tumors, skin, and salivary gland, or to reirradiation. The aim of this review is to present the physical properties and dosimetric benefit of proton therapy over advanced photon therapy; to summarize the clinical benefit described for each disease site; and to discuss issues of patient selection and cost-effectiveness.

Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Adaptive Planning for Patients with Oropharyngeal Cancer

Purpose

The authors aimed to illustrate the potential dose differences to clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs-at-risk (OARs) volumes after proton adaptive treatment planning was used.

Patients and Methods

The records of 10 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Each patient's treatment plan was generated by using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Verification computed tomography (CT) scan was performed during the fourth week of treatment. Deformable image registrations were performed between the 2 CT image sets, and the CTVs and major OARs were transferred to the verification CT images to generate the adaptive plan. We compared the accumulated doses to CTVs and OARs between the original and adaptive plans, as well as between the adaptive and verification plans to simulate doses that would have been delivered if the adaptive plans were not used.

Results

Body contours were different on planning and week-4 verification CTs. Mean volumes of all CTVs were reduced by 4% to 8% (P ≤ .04), and the volumes of left and right parotid glands also decreased (by 11% to 12%, P ≤ .004). Brainstem and oral cavity volumes did not significantly differ (all P ≥ .14). All mean doses to the CTV were decreased for up to 7% (P ≤ .04), whereas mean doses to the right parotid and oral cavity increased from a range of 5% to 8% (P ≤ .03), respectively.

Conclusion

Verification and adaptive planning should be recommended during the course of proton therapy for patients with head and neck cancer to ensure adequate dose deliveries to the planned CTVs, while safe doses to OARs can be respected.

[Proton therapy for head and neck cancers]

The absence of exit dose and the sharp lateral penumbra are key assets for proton therapy, which are responsible for its dosimetric superiority over advanced photon radiotherapy. Dosimetric comparisons have consistently shown a reduction of the integral dose and the dose to organs at risk favouring intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The structures that benefit the most of these dosimetric improvements in head and neck cancers are the anterior oral cavity, the posterior fossa, the visual apparatus and swallowing structures. A number of publications have concluded that these dosimetric differences actually translate into reduced toxicities with IMPT, for example with regards to reduced weight loss or need for feeding tube. Patient survival is usually similar to IMRT series, except in base of skull or sinonasal malignancies, where a survival advantage of IMPT could exist. The goals of the present review is to describe the major characteristics of proton therapy, to analyse the clinical data with regards to head and neck cancer patients, and to highlight the issue of patient selection and physical and biological uncertainties.