Can Proton Linear Accelerator Beams and Minibeams Achieve Superior Plan Quality over Cyclotron-Generated Proton Beams and Photons in the Treatment of Multiple Brain Metastases?

Abstract

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> To compare plan quality and delivery timing among photon Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy using cyclotron-generated proton beams (CPB), linear accelerator proton beams (LPB), and linear accelerator proton minibeams (LPMB). <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> Thirty-five brain lesions from twenty patients were planned using CPBs and compared against LPBs and LPMBs and VMAT. All proton plans were optimized with multi-field optimization technique using the Monte Carlo algorithm. Benchmarked on the photon plans, dose coverage to each lesion for each proton plan was set to 99% of the GTV receiving the prescription (Rx) dose for all plans. Conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), V_12Gy, V_4.5Gy and mean dose of the brain were compared. To achieve similar PTV dose coverage to photons, ±2 mm setup uncertainty and ±2% range uncertainty were included in robust evaluation using V_100%Rx > 95% of the GTV for proton plans. Additionally, the plan delivery timing was assessed based on the proton modalities' energy switching and spot scanning times. <h3>Results</h3> All metrics of CI, GI, V_12Gy, V_4.5Gy, and mean brain dose for VMAT photon and three different proton plans are listed in Table 1. When compared to CPB generated plans, CI and GI were significantly better for the LPB and LPMB plans with a mean CI of 1.7 ± 0.5, 1.57 ± 0.4, and 1.4 ± 0.6 and a mean GI of 4.64 ± 1.48, 3.7 ± 1.1 and 2.8 ± 0.7, respectively. In comparison, mean CI and GI from photon VMAT plans were 2 ± 1.2, 4.7 ± 1.4. All proton plans achieved better V_4.5Gy than photon VMAT plans. LPBs reduced the mean brain dose by 17% compared to the CPB plans, and LPMB plans reduced the mean brain dose by 44%. While all plans had V_100%Rx of the GTV > 99% in the nominal scenario, in the voxel-wise worst scenario, 97.1%, 92.8% and 84.2% of the lesions had V_100%Rx > 95% for CPB, LPB, and LPMB, respectively, and in the worst-case scenario, 97.1%, 94.3% and 78.6% of the plans showed V_100%Rx > 95% among all lesions. The LPB energy switching time (5 ms) enables a rapid beam delivery, 58% faster on average than for CPB plans. LPMB beam delivery time can be further reduced by spot reduction planning (SRP) with equal plan quality. <h3>Conclusion</h3> We successfully quantified plan quality and evaluated robustness for CPBs, LPBs and LPMBs for brain metastases. The LPB and LPMB stand as an excellent alternative to CPB therapy and can significantly increase the preservation of normal tissue while ensuring fast delivery time.