1
|
Wase V, Widenfalk O, Nilsson R, Fälth C, Fredriksson A. Fast spot order optimization to increase dose rates in scanned particle therapy FLASH treatments. Phys Med Biol 2025; 70:025017. [PMID: 39774312 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ada715] [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: 09/19/2024] [Accepted: 01/07/2025] [Indexed: 01/11/2025]
Abstract
The advent of ultra-high dose rate irradiation, known as FLASH radiation therapy, has shown promising potential in reducing toxicity while maintaining tumor control. However, the clinical translation of these benefits necessitates efficient treatment planning strategies. This study introduces a novel approach to optimize proton therapy for FLASH effects using traveling salesperson problem (TSP) heuristics. We applied these heuristics to optimize the arrangement of proton spots in treatment plans for 26 prostate cancer patients, comparing the performance against conventional sorting methods and global optimization techniques. Our results demonstrate that TSP-based heuristics significantly enhance FLASH coverage to the same extent as the global optimization technique, but with computation times reduced from hours to a few seconds. This approach offers a practical and scalable solution for enhancing the effectiveness of FLASH therapy, paving the way for more effective and personalized cancer treatments. Future work will focus on further optimizing run times and validating these methods in clinical settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Viktor Wase
- Research, RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | | | - Claes Fälth
- Research, RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mein S, Wuyckens S, Li X, Both S, Carabe A, Vera MC, Engwall E, Francesco F, Graeff C, Gu W, Hong L, Inaniwa T, Janssens G, de Jong B, Li T, Liang X, Liu G, Lomax A, Mackie T, Mairani A, Mazal A, Nesteruk KP, Paganetti H, Pérez Moreno JM, Schreuder N, Soukup M, Tanaka S, Tessonnier T, Volz L, Zhao L, Ding X. Particle arc therapy: Status and potential. Radiother Oncol 2024; 199:110434. [PMID: 39009306 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110434] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2023] [Revised: 06/23/2024] [Accepted: 07/10/2024] [Indexed: 07/17/2024]
Abstract
There is a rising interest in developing and utilizing arc delivery techniques with charged particle beams, e.g., proton, carbon or other ions, for clinical implementation. In this work, perspectives from the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) 2022 physics workshop on particle arc therapy are reported. This outlook provides an outline and prospective vision for the path forward to clinically deliverable proton, carbon, and other ion arc treatments. Through the collaboration among industry, academic, and clinical research and development, the scientific landscape and outlook for particle arc therapy are presented here to help our community understand the physics, radiobiology, and clinical principles. The work is presented in three main sections: (i) treatment planning, (ii) treatment delivery, and (iii) clinical outlook.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stewart Mein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Sophie Wuyckens
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Xiaoqiang Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, William Beaumont University Hospital, Proton Therapy Center, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Macarena Chocan Vera
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
| | | | | | - Christian Graeff
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany; Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Wenbo Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Liu Hong
- Ion Beam Applications SA, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Taku Inaniwa
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan; Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Graduate School of Medicine, Division of Health Sciences, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
| | | | - Bas de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Taoran Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Gang Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, William Beaumont University Hospital, Proton Therapy Center, Royal Oak, MI, USA; Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Antony Lomax
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland; ETH, Department of Physics, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Mackie
- Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - Konrad P Nesteruk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | | | | | | | - Sodai Tanaka
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | | | - Lennart Volz
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany; Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Lewei Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, William Beaumont University Hospital, Proton Therapy Center, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Liang X, Liu C, Shen J, Flampouri S, Park JC, Lu B, Yaddanapudi S, Tan J, Furutani KM, Beltran CJ. Impact of proton PBS machine operating parameters on the effectiveness of layer rescanning for interplay effect mitigation in lung SBRT treatment. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2024; 25:e14342. [PMID: 38590112 PMCID: PMC11244664 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14342] [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: 12/22/2023] [Revised: 02/07/2024] [Accepted: 03/13/2024] [Indexed: 04/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rescanning is a common technique used in proton pencil beam scanning to mitigate the interplay effect. Advances in machine operating parameters across different generations of particle therapy systems have led to improvements in beam delivery time (BDT). However, the potential impact of these improvements on the effectiveness of rescanning remains an underexplored area in the existing research. METHODS We systematically investigated the impact of proton machine operating parameters on the effectiveness of layer rescanning in mitigating interplay effect during lung SBRT treatment, using the CIRS phantom. Focused on the Hitachi synchrotron particle therapy system, we explored machine operating parameters from our institution's current (2015) and upcoming systems (2025A and 2025B). Accumulated dynamic 4D dose were reconstructed to assess the interplay effect and layer rescanning effectiveness. RESULTS Achieving target coverage and dose homogeneity within 2% deviation required 6, 6, and 20 times layer rescanning for the 2015, 2025A, and 2025B machine parameters, respectively. Beyond this point, further increasing the number of layer rescanning did not further improve the dose distribution. BDTs without rescanning were 50.4, 24.4, and 11.4 s for 2015, 2025A, and 2025B, respectively. However, after incorporating proper number of layer rescanning (six for 2015 and 2025A, 20 for 2025B), BDTs increased to 67.0, 39.6, and 42.3 s for 2015, 2025A, and 2025B machine parameters. Our data also demonstrated the potential problem of false negative and false positive if the randomness of the respiratory phase at which the beam is initiated is not considered in the evaluation of interplay effect. CONCLUSION The effectiveness of layer rescanning for mitigating interplay effect is affected by machine operating parameters. Therefore, past clinical experiences may not be applicable to modern machines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleFloridaUSA
| | - Chunbo Liu
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityZhengzhouChina
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicPhoenixArizonaUSA
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation OncologyWinship Cancer InstituteEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
| | - Justin C. Park
- Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleFloridaUSA
| | - Bo Lu
- Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleFloridaUSA
| | | | - Jun Tan
- Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleFloridaUSA
| | | | - Chris J. Beltran
- Department of Radiation OncologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleFloridaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Liang X, Beltran CJ, Liu C, Shen J, Li H, Furutani KM. Technical note: Delivery benefit and dosimetric implication of synchrotron-based proton pencil beam scanning using continuous scanning mode. Med Phys 2023; 50:5252-5261. [PMID: 37115647 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16434] [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: 12/10/2022] [Revised: 03/03/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Chris J Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Chunbo Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Keith M Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|