Rotationally Intensified Proton Lattice: A Novel Lattice Technique Using Spot-Scanning Proton Arc Therapy

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and dosimetric advantage of using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) for lattice radiation therapy in comparison with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) lattice techniques. Lattice plans were retrospectively generated for 14 large tumors across the abdomen, pelvis, lung, and head-and-neck sites using VMAT, IMPT, and SPArc techniques. Lattice geometries comprised vertices 1.5 cm in diameter that were arrayed in a body-centered cubic lattice with a 6-cm lattice constant. The prescription dose was 20 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) in 5 fractions to the periphery of the tumor, with a simultaneous integrated boost of 66.7 Gy (RBE) as a minimum dose to the vertices. Organ-at-risk constraints per American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 101were prioritized. Dose-volume histograms were extracted and used to identify maximum, minimum, and mean doses; equivalent uniform dose; D95%, D50%, D10%, D5%; V19Gy; peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR); and gradient index (GI). The treatment delivery time of IMPT and SPArc were simulated based on the published proton delivery sequence model. Median tumor volume was 577 cc with a median of 4.5 high-dose vertices per plan. Low-dose coverage was maintained in all plans (median V19Gy: SPArc 96%, IMPT 96%, VMAT 92%). SPArc generated significantly greater dose gradients as measured by PVDR (SPArc 4.0, IMPT 3.6, VMAT 3.2; SPArc-IMPT P = .0001, SPArc-VMAT P < .001) and high-dose GI (SPArc 5.9, IMPT 11.7, VMAT 17.1; SPArc-IMPT P = .001, SPArc-VMAT P < .01). Organ-at-risk constraints were met in all plans. Simulated delivery time was significantly improved with SPArc compared with IMPT (510 seconds vs 637 seconds, P < .001). SPArc therapy was able to achieve high-quality lattice plans for various sites with superior gradient metrics (PVDR and GI) when compared with VMAT and IMPT. Clinical implementation is warranted.