Proton and Photon Dosimetry of Carbon Fiber-PEEK Implants for Paraspinal Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> Carbon fiber composite (CFR-PEEK) implants have been shown to improve image quality in volumetric imaging compared with titanium (Ti). We perform a dosimetric comparison of proton and photon SBRT plans with Ti and CFR-PEEK implants for paraspinal SBRT treatments. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> CT scans of a spine phantom embedded with CFR-PEEK and Ti implants were obtained. PTV and OAR contours for a 24 Gy single fraction plan were generated with d_max spinal cord < 14 Gy. Nine-field IMRT photon plans were optimized on both scans. Three-field pencil beam scanning (PBS) plans using multi-field optimization (MFO) were generated. Robust evaluation for 2 mm setup, ± 3.5% range and ± 10% material density override uncertainties were performed. To evaluate the MR image quality of the carbon fiber implants, an implant set was placed in a water phantom. Spine MRI imaging sequences were acquired at 1.5T and 3T and associated artifacts were evaluated. <h3>Results</h3> Target V95 coverage statistics for all plans are shown in Table 1. Photon plans with CFR-PEEK vs. Ti implants were not significantly different. Target coverage goals and OAR constraints were met. When the CFR-PEEK optimized photon plan was recalculated on Ti CT, PTV V100% was reduced by 12.4%, demonstrating the dose perturbation induced by Ti implants. The MFO proton plans for both implant scenarios had lower coverage than the IMRT plans due to the sharper gradients on the IMRT plans. The PBS plan for CFR-PEEK had slightly better coverage than for Ti. Cord-constraint-free proton plans were generated to investigate how the cord constraint impacted the proton plan. Without the constraint, PTV V95% was 99.0% for CFR-PEEK and 94.9% for Ti plans. The increased coverage for CFR-PEEK plan suggests that the potential advantage of CFR-PEEK is masked by the tight cord constraints. In robustness analysis, no clear benefit was shown for range and setup uncertainties. However, advantage in target coverage robustness was seen under material density perturbation analysis. Specifically, the perturbed PTV V95% ranged from 88.7% to 88.4%. In contrast, for Ti plan, PTV V95% varied from 86.5% to 82.3% in perturbed scenarios. In MRI studies, no metal signal loss image artifacts were observed around the CFR-PEEK screws at either field strengths. Minor signal pile-up artifacts of < 5 mm can be seen on one side of the screw in high field 3 T studies but were negligible in 1.5 T studies. <h3>Conclusion</h3> For paraspinal SBRT, utilizing CFR-PEEK compared to Ti implants do not significantly affect plan quality for both PBS and IMRT. Proton plans are more robust for material composition uncertainties only. The largest advantage of CFR-PEEK vs. Ti will be in MR image quality improvements, which can translate to more accurate target delineations and improved follow-up image quality.