Simultaneous reduction of number of spots and energy layers in intensity modulated proton therapy for rapid spot scanning delivery

BACKGROUND

Reducing proton treatment time improves patient comfort and decreases the risk of error from intrafractional motion, but must be balanced against clinical goals and treatment plan quality.

PURPOSE

To improve the delivery efficiency of spot scanning proton therapy by simultaneously reducing the number of spots and energy layers using the reweightedl 1 $l_1$ regularization method.

METHODS

We formulated the proton treatment planning problem as a convex optimization problem with a cost function consisting of a dosimetric plan quality term plus a weightedl 1 $l_1$ regularization term. We iteratively solved this problem and adaptively updated the regularization weights to promote the sparsity of both the spots and energy layers. The proposed algorithm was tested on four head-and-neck cancer patients, and its performance, in terms of reducing the number of spots and energy layers, was compared with existing standardl 1 $l_1$ and groupl 2 $l_2$ regularization methods. We also compared the effectiveness of the three methods (l 1 $l_1$ , groupl 2 $l_2$ , and reweightedl 1 $l_1$ ) at improving plan delivery efficiency without compromising dosimetric plan quality by constructing each of their Pareto surfaces charting the trade-off between plan delivery and plan quality.

RESULTS

The reweightedl 1 $l_1$ regularization method reduced the number of spots and energy layers by an average over all patients of40 % $40\%$ and35 % $35\%$ , respectively, with an insignificant cost to dosimetric plan quality. From the Pareto surfaces, it is clear that reweightedl 1 $l_1$ provided a better trade-off between plan delivery efficiency and dosimetric plan quality than standardl 1 $l_1$ or groupl 2 $l_2$ regularization, requiring the lowest cost to quality to achieve any given level of delivery efficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Reweightedl 1 $l_1$ regularization is a powerful method for simultaneously promoting the sparsity of spots and energy layers at a small cost to dosimetric plan quality. This sparsity reduces the time required for spot scanning and energy layer switching, thereby improving the delivery efficiency of proton plans.

Treatment planning comparison for head and neck cancer between photon, proton, and combined proton-photon therapy - From a fixed beam line to an arc

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.

Technical note: Delivery benefit and dosimetric implication of synchrotron-based proton pencil beam scanning using continuous scanning mode

BACKGROUND

Discrete spot scanning (DSS) is the commonly used method for proton pencil beam scanning (PBS). There is lack of data on the dose-driven continuous scanning (DDCS).

PURPOSE

To investigate delivery benefits and dosimetric implications of DDCS versus DSS for PBS systems.

METHODS

The irradiation duty factor, beam delivery time (BDT), and dose deviation were simulated for eight treatment plans in prostate, head and neck, liver, and lung, with both conventional fractionation and hypofractionation schemes. DDCS results were compared with those of DSS.

RESULTS

The DDCS irradiation duty factor (range, 11%-41%) was appreciably improved compared to DSS delivery (range, 4%-14%), within which, hypofractionation schemes had greater improvement than conventional fractionation. With decreasing stop ratio constraints, the DDCS BDT reduction was greater, but dose deviation also increased. With stop ratio constraints of 2, 1, 0.5, and 0, DDCS BDT reduction reached to 6%, 10%, 12%, and 15%, respectively, and dose deviation reached to 0.6%, 1.7%, 3.0%, and 5.2% root mean square error in PTV DVH, respectively. The 3%/2-mm gamma passing rate was greater than 99% with stop ratio constraints of 2 and 1, and greater than 95% with a stop ratio of 0.5. When the stop ratio constraint was removed, five of the eight treatment plans had a 3%/2-mm gamma passing rate greater than 95%, and the other three plans had a 3%/2-mm gamma passing rate between 90% and 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

The irradiation duty factor was considerably improved with DDCS. Smaller stop ratio constraints led to shorter BDTs, but with the cost of larger dose deviations. Our finding suggested that a stop ratio of 1 constraint seems to yield acceptable DDCS dose deviation.

Operational Performance of a Compact Proton Therapy System: A 5-Year Experience

Purpose

We present an analysis of various operational metrics for a novel compact proton therapy system, including clinical case mix, subsystems utilization, and quality assurance trends in beam delivery parameters over a period of 5 years.

Materials and Methods

Patient-specific data from a total of 850 patients (25,567 fractions) have been collected and analyzed. The patient mix include a variety of simple, intermediate, and complex cases. Beam-specific delivery parameters for a total of 3585 beams were analyzed. In-room imaging system usage for off-line adaptive purpose is reported. We also report key machine performances metrics based on routine quality assurance in addition to uptime.

Results

Our analysis shows that system subcomponents including gantry and patient positioning system have maintained a tight mechanical tolerance over the 5-year period. Various beam parameters were all within acceptable tolerances with no clear trends. Utilization frequency histograms of gantry and patient positioning system show that only a small fraction of all available angles was used for patient deliveries with cardinal angels as the most usable. Similarly, beam-specific metrics, such as range, modulation, and air gaps, were clustered unevenly over the available range indicating that this compact system was more than capable to treat the complex variety of tumors of our patient mix.

Conclusion

Our data show that this compact system is versatile, robust, and capable of delivering complex treatments like a large full-gantry system. Utilization data show that a fraction of all subcomponents range of angular motion has been used. Compilation of beam-specific metrics, such as range and modulation, show uneven distributions with specific clustering over the entire usable range. Our findings could be used to further optimize the performance and cost-effectiveness of future compact proton systems.

Future Developments in Charged Particle Therapy: Improving Beam Delivery for Efficiency and Efficacy

The physical and clinical benefits of charged particle therapy (CPT) are well recognized. However, the availability of CPT and complete exploitation of dosimetric advantages are still limited by high facility costs and technological challenges. There are extensive ongoing efforts to improve upon these, which will lead to greater accessibility, superior delivery, and therefore better treatment outcomes. Yet, the issue of cost remains a primary hurdle as utility of CPT is largely driven by the affordability, complexity and performance of current technology. Modern delivery techniques are necessary but limited by extended treatment times. Several of these aspects can be addressed by developments in the beam delivery system (BDS) which determines the overall shaping and timing capabilities enabling high quality treatments. The energy layer switching time (ELST) is a limiting constraint of the BDS and a determinant of the beam delivery time (BDT), along with the accelerator and other factors. This review evaluates the delivery process in detail, presenting the limitations and developments for the BDS and related accelerator technology, toward decreasing the BDT. As extended BDT impacts motion and has dosimetric implications for treatment, we discuss avenues to minimize the ELST and overview the clinical benefits and feasibility of a large energy acceptance BDS. These developments support the possibility of advanced modalities and faster delivery for a greater range of treatment indications which could also further reduce costs. Further work to realize methodologies such as volumetric rescanning, FLASH, arc, multi-ion and online image guided therapies are discussed. In this review we examine how increased treatment efficiency and efficacy could be achieved with improvements in beam delivery and how this could lead to faster and higher quality treatments for the future of CPT.

Quantitative analysis of treatments using real-time image gated spot-scanning with synchrotron-based proton beam therapy system log data

A synchrotron-based real-time image gated spot-scanning proton beam therapy (RGPT) system with inserted fiducial markers can irradiate a moving tumor with high accuracy. As gated treatments increase the beam delivery time, this study aimed to investigate the frequency of intra-field adjustments corresponding to the baseline shift or drift and the beam delivery efficiency of a synchrotron-based RGPT system. Data from 118 patients corresponding to 127 treatment plans and 2810 sessions between October 2016 and March 2019 were collected. We quantitatively analyzed the proton beam delivery time, the difference between the ideal beam delivery time based on a simulated synchrotron magnetic excitation pattern and the actual treatment beam delivery time, frequency corresponding to the baseline shift or drift, and the gating efficiency of the synchrotron-based RGPT system according to the proton beam delivery machine log data. The mean actual beam delivery time was 7.1 min, and the simulated beam delivery time in an ideal environment with the same treatment plan was 2.9 min. The average difference between the actual and simulated beam delivery time per session was 4.3 min. The average frequency of intra-field adjustments corresponding to baseline shift or drift and beam delivery efficiency were 21.7% and 61.8%, respectively. Based on our clinical experience with a synchrotron-based RGPT system, we determined the frequency corresponding to baseline shift or drift and the beam delivery efficiency using the beam delivery machine log data. To maintain treatment accuracy within ± 2.0 mm, intra-field adjustments corresponding to baseline shift or drift were required in approximately 20% of cases. Further improvements in beam delivery efficiency may be realized by shortening the beam delivery time.

Quantitative analysis of MRI-guided radiotherapy treatment process time for tumor real-time gating efficiency

PURPOSE

Magnetic Resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) systems allow continuous monitoring of therapy volumes during treatment delivery and personalized respiratory gating approaches. Treatment length may therefore be significantly affected by patient's compliance and breathing control. We quantitatively analyzed treatment process time efficiency (TE ) using data obtained from real-world patient treatment logs to optimize MRgRT delivery settings.

METHODS

Data corresponding to the first 100 patients treated with a low T hybrid MRI-Linac system, both in free breathing (FB) and in breath hold inspiration (BHI) were collected. TE has been computed as the percentage difference of the actual single fraction's total treatment time and the predicted treatment process time, as computed by the TPS during plan optimization. Differences between the scheduled and actual treatment room occupancy time were also evaluated. Finally, possible correlations with planning, delivery and clinical parameters with TE were also investigated.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and nineteen treatment fractions were evaluated. TE difference between BHI and FB patients' groups was statistically significant and the mean TE were 42.4%, and -0.5% respectively. No correlation was found with TE for BHI and FB groups. Planning, delivering and clinical parameters classified BHI and FB groups, but no correlation with TE was found.

CONCLUSION

The use of BHI gating technique can increase the treatment process time significantly. BHI technique could be not always an adequate delivery technique to optimize the treatment process time. Further gating techniques should be considered to improve the use of MRgRT.

Conventionally fractionated large volume head and neck re-irradiation using multileaf collimator-based robotic technique: A feasibility study

Purpose

To report on the feasibility and performance of conventionally fractionated multileaf collimator (MLC)-based robotic stereotactic body re-irradiation of the head and neck region using MLC-based Cyberknife (CK) technology.

Methods

Patients treated for recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer (HNC) with curative proton therapy to a target volume > 30 cm³ between 2011 and 2015 were included. MLC-based CK plans were generated using the CK M6 InCise2 MLC system. Dose statistics from MLC-based CK plans were compared to proton beam therapy (PBT) plans according to the following metrics: target coverage, target homogeneity index, gradient index, Paddick conformity index (CI), prescription isodose volume (PIV), treatment time (tTime) for one fraction as well as doses to organs at risk (OAR). Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare dose metrics.

Results

Eight patients were included; the tumor sites included: salivary glands, pharynx (oropharynx, hypopharynx and retropharynx) and sinonasal cavities. Five of 8 patients were treated with multifield optimisation intensity modulated proton therapy, 3 were treated with passive scattering proton therapy. Median dose was 67 Gy (range 60-70) in 32 fractions (range 30-35). The median high-dose planning target volume (PTV) was 45.4 cm³ (range 2.4 - 130.2 cm³) and the median elective PTV was 91.9 cm³ (range 61.2 - 269.7 cm³). Overall, the mean target coverage (mean 98.3% vs. 96.2% for CK vs. PBT, respectively), maximum dose to PTV (mean 111% vs. 111%, p = 0.2) and mean dose to PTV (mean 104% vs. 104%) were similar across modalities. Highly conformal plans were achieved with both modalities, but mean CI was better with PBT (0.5 vs. 0.6 for CK vs. PBT, p = 0.04). Homogeneity and gradient indexes were similar between the 2 modalities; mean tTime with PBT and CK was 17 vs. 18 min, respectively (p = 0.7). Case-based study revealed that CK and PBT plans allowed for excellent sparing of OAR, with some clinical scenarios associated with better performance of CK while others with better performance of PBT.

Conclusion

Our study has demonstrated the dosimetric performance of large volume head and neck re-irradiation using MLC-based CK in various clinical scenarios. While conformity was generally better achieved with PBT, MLC-based CK allowed for high dose gradient leading to rapid dose drop-off and sparing of OAR. Conventionally fractionated MLC-based CK could be a competitive alternative in large volume head and neck re-irradiation that deserves further investigation in the clinical setting.

Analysis of treatment process time for real-time-image gated-spot-scanning proton-beam therapy (RGPT) system

We developed a synchrotron‐based real‐time‐image gated‐spot‐scanning proton‐beam therapy (RGPT) system and utilized it to clinically operate on moving tumors in the liver, pancreas, lung, and prostate. When the spot‐scanning technique is linked to gating, the beam delivery time with gating can increase, compared to that without gating. We aim to clarify whether the total treatment process can be performed within approximately 30 min (the general time per session in several proton therapy facilities), even for gated‐spot‐scanning proton‐beam delivery with implanted fiducial markers. Data from 152 patients, corresponding to 201 treatment plans and 3577 sessions executed from October 2016 to June 2018, were included in this study. To estimate the treatment process time, we utilized data from proton beam delivery logs during the treatment for each patient. We retrieved data, such as the disease site, total target volume, field size at the isocenter, and the number of layers and spots for each field, from the treatment plans. We quantitatively analyzed the treatment process, which includes the patient load (or setup), bone matching, marker matching, beam delivery, patient unload, and equipment setup, using the data obtained from the log data. Among all the cases, 90 patients used the RGPT system (liver: n = 34; pancreas: n = 5; lung: n = 4; and prostate: n = 47). The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the total treatment process time for the RGPT system was 30.3 ± 7.4 min, while it was 25.9 ± 7.5 min for those without gating treatment, excluding craniospinal irradiation (CSI; head and neck: n = 16, pediatric: n = 31, others: n = 15); for CSI (n = 11) with two or three isocenters, the process time was 59.9 ± 13.9 min. Our results demonstrate that spot‐scanning proton therapy with a gating function can be achieved in approximately 30‐min time slots.

Retrospective analysis of reduced energy switching and room switching times on throughput efficiency of a multi-room proton therapy center

OBJECTIVE

To quantify how a control software upgrade changed beam delivery times and impacted efficiency and capacity of a multiroom proton therapy center.

METHODS

A four-room center treating approximately 90 patients/day, treating for approximately 7 years with optimized operations, underwent a software upgrade which reduced room and energy switching times from approximately 30 to 20 s and approximately 4 s to ~0.5 s, respectively. The center uses radio-frequency identification data to track patient treatments and has software which links this to beam delivery data extracted from the treatment log server. Two 4-month periods, with comparable patient volume, representing periods before and after the software change, were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 16,168 and 17,102 fields were analyzed. For bilateral head and neck and prostate patients, the beam waiting time was reduced by nearly a factor of 3 and the beam delivery times were reduced by nearly a factor of 2.5. Room switching times were reduced more modestly. Gantry capacity has increased from approximately 30 patients to 40-45 patients in a 16-h daily operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Many proton centers are striving for increased efficiencies. We demonstrated that reductions in energy and room switching time can significantly increase center capacity. Greater potential for further gains would come from improvements in setup and imaging efficiency.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This paper provides detailed measured data on the effect on treatment times resulting from reducing energy and room switching times under controlled conditions. It helps validate the models of previous investigations to establish treatment capacity of a proton therapy center.

Multiple energy extraction reduces beam delivery time for a synchrotron-based proton spot-scanning system

Purpose

Multiple energy extraction (MEE) is a technology that was recently introduced by Hitachi for its spot-scanning proton treatment system, which allows multiple energies to be delivered in a single synchrotron spill. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how much beam delivery time (BDT) can be reduced with MEE compared with single energy extraction (SEE), in which one energy is delivered per spill.

Methods and Materials

A recently developed model based on BDT measurements of our synchrotron's delivery performance was used to compute BDT. The total BDT for 2694 beam deliveries in a cohort of 79 patients treated at our institution was computed in both SEE and 9 MEE configurations to determine BDT reduction. The cohort BDT reduction was also calculated for hypothetical accelerators with increased deliverable charge and compared with the results of our current delivery system.

Results

A vendor-provided MEE configuration with 4 energy layers per spill reduced the total BDT on average by 35% (41 seconds) compared with SEE, with up to 65% BDT reduction for individual fields. Adding an MEE layer reduced the total BDT by <1% of SEE BDT. However, improving charge recapture efficiency increased BDT savings by up to 42% of SEE BDT.

Conclusions

The MEE delivery technique reduced the total BDT by 35%. Increasing the charge per spill and charge recapture efficiency is necessary to further reduce BDT and thereby take full advantage of our MEE system's potential to improve treatment delivery efficiency and operational throughput.

Technical Note: Using experimentally determined proton spot scanning timing parameters to accurately model beam delivery time

PURPOSE

To accurately model the beam delivery time (BDT) for a synchrotron-based proton spot scanning system using experimentally determined beam parameters.

METHODS

A model to simulate the proton spot delivery sequences was constructed, and BDT was calculated by summing times for layer switch, spot switch, and spot delivery. Test plans were designed to isolate and quantify the relevant beam parameters in the operation cycle of the proton beam therapy delivery system. These parameters included the layer switch time, magnet preparation and verification time, average beam scanning speeds in x- and y-directions, proton spill rate, and maximum charge and maximum extraction time for each spill. The experimentally determined parameters, as well as the nominal values initially provided by the vendor, served as inputs to the model to predict BDTs for 602 clinical proton beam deliveries. The calculated BDTs (T_BDT ) were compared with the BDTs recorded in the treatment delivery log files (T_Log ): ∆t = T_Log -T_BDT .

RESULTS

The experimentally determined average layer switch time for all 97 energies was 1.91 s (ranging from 1.9 to 2.0 s for beam energies from 71.3 to 228.8 MeV), average magnet preparation and verification time was 1.93 ms, the average scanning speeds were 5.9 m/s in x-direction and 19.3 m/s in y-direction, the proton spill rate was 8.7 MU/s, and the maximum proton charge available for one acceleration is 2.0 ± 0.4 nC. Some of the measured parameters differed from the nominal values provided by the vendor. The calculated BDTs using experimentally determined parameters matched the recorded BDTs of 602 beam deliveries (∆t = -0.49 ± 1.44 s), which were significantly more accurate than BDTs calculated using nominal timing parameters (∆t = -7.48 ± 6.97 s).

CONCLUSIONS

An accurate model for BDT prediction was achieved by using the experimentally determined proton beam therapy delivery parameters, which may be useful in modeling the interplay effect and patient throughput. The model may provide guidance on how to effectively reduce BDT and may be used to identifying deteriorating machine performance.

[Technical aspects of protontherapy: Setup, equipment and radioprotection]

The number of protontherapy facilities is still increasing rapidly with more than 30 ongoing projects and close to 60 currently under operation. Although the technology is now validated and robust, a proton facility cannot be considered as a standard radiation therapy equipment: its constraints in terms of building, services, project management are of paramount impact at the level of the hospital. Therefore, a protontherapy project must be carefully considered and prepared, which is mandatory for further fluid and efficient clinical operation.