Single Field Uniform Dose Plans Research Articles

Dosimetric impact of systematic spot position errors in spot scanning proton therapy of head and neck tumor.

The spot position is an important beam parameter in the quality assurance of scanning proton therapy. In this study, we investigated dosimetric impact of systematic 15 spot position errors (SSPE) in spot scanning proton therapy using three types of optimization methods of head and neck tumor. The planning simulation was performed with ± 2 mm model SSPE in the X and Y directions. Treatment plans were created using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and single-field uniform dose (SFUD). IMPT plans were created by two optimization methods: with worst-case optimization (WCO-IMPT) and without (IMPT). For clinical target volume (CTV), D95%, D50%, and D2cc were used for analysis. For organs at risk (OAR), Dmean was used to analyze the brain, cochlea, and parotid, and Dmax was used to analyze brainsetem, chiasm, optic nerve, and cord. For CTV, the variation (1 standard deviation) of D95% was ± 0.88%, 0.97% and 0.97% to WCO-IMPT, IMPT, and SFUD plan. The variation of D50% and D2cc of CTV showed <0.5% variation in all plans. The dose variation due to SSPE was larger in OAR, and worst-case optimization reduced the dose variation, especially in Dmax. The analysis results showed that SSPE has little impact on SFUD. We clarified the impact of SSPE on dose distribution for three optimization methods. SFUD was shown to be a robust treatment plan for OARs, and the WCO can be used to increase robustness to SSPE in IMPT.

Estimated Risk of Radiation-Induced Cancer after Thymoma Treatments with Proton- or X-ray Beams.

Simple SummaryThymic tumors, i.e., thymomas and thymic carcinomas, are rare tumors that derive from the remnant of the thymus gland. Although surgery is the first treatment of choice, some patients will be treated with radiotherapy. For many patients the prognosis is good, hence it is important to avoid treatment related complications such as radiation-induced secondary malignancies. Radiotherapy can be delivered with different techniques and with different particles. In the present study, we compare the calculated (estimated) risks for secondary malignancies after treatment of thymic tumors with two different photon (x-ray) radiotherapy techniques or with proton beam therapy. We use a commonly used radiobiological model to calculate the risks for radiation induced secondary malignancies for each treatment modality. In conclusion, proton beam therapy was shown to provide the potential for reducing the risk of secondary malignancies, compared to photon radiotherapy, after treatment of thymic tumors.We compared the calculated risks of radiation-induced secondary malignant neoplasms (SMNs) for patients treated for thymic tumors with 3D-CRT, IMRT, or single-field uniform dose (SFUD) proton beam therapy (PBT) using the pencil beam scanning (PBS) technique. A cancer-induction model based on the organ equivalent dose (OED) concept was used. For twelve patients, treated with 3D-CRT for thymic tumors, alternative IMRT and SFUD plans were retrospectively prepared. The resulting DVHs for organs at risk (OARs) were extracted and used to estimate the risk of SMNs. The OED was calculated using a mechanistic model for carcinoma induction. Two limit cases were considered; the linear-exponential model, in which the repopulation/repair of the cells is neglected, and the plateau model, in which full repopulation/repair of the irradiated cells is assumed. The calculated risks for SMNs for the different radiation modalities and dose-relation models were used to calculate relative risks, which were compared pairwise. The risks for developing SMNs were reduced for all OARs, and for both dose-relation models, if SFUD was used, compared to 3D-CRT and IMRT. In conclusion, PBS shows a potential benefit to reduce the risk of SMNs compared to 3D-CRT and IMRT in the treatment of thymic tumors.

A Probability-Based Investigation on the Setup Robustness of Pencil-beam Proton Radiation Therapy for Skull-Base Meningioma.

IntroductionThe intracranial skull-base meningioma is in proximity to multiple critical organs and heterogeneous tissues. Steep dose gradients often result from avoiding critical organs in proton treatment plans. Dose uncertainties arising from setup errors under image-guided radiation therapy are worthy of evaluation.Patients and MethodsFourteen patients with skull-base meningioma were retrospectively identified and planned with proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) single-field uniform dose (SFUD) and multifield optimization (MFO) techniques. The setup uncertainties were assigned a probability model on the basis of prior published data. The impact on the dose distribution from nominal 1-mm and large, less probable setup errors, as well as the cumulative effect, was analyzed. The robustness of SFUD and MFO planning techniques in these scenarios was discussed.ResultsThe target coverage was reduced and the plan dose hot spot increased by all setup uncertainty scenarios regardless of the planning techniques. For 1 mm nominal shifts, the deviations in clinical target volume (CTV) coverage D99% was −11 ± 52 cGy and −45 ± 147 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans. The setup uncertainties affected the organ at risk (OAR) dose both positively and negatively. The statistical average of the setup uncertainties had <100 cGy impact on the plan qualities for all patients. The cumulative deviations in CTV D95% were 1 ± 34 cGy and −7 ± 18 cGy for SFUD and MFO plans.ConclusionIt is important to understand the impact of setup uncertainties on skull-base meningioma, as the tumor target has complex shape and is in proximity to multiple critical organs. Our work evaluated the setup uncertainty based on its probability distribution and evaluated the dosimetric consequences. In general, the SFUD plans demonstrated more robustness than the MFO plans in target coverages and brainstem dose. The probability-weighted overall effect on the dose distribution is small compared to the dosimetric shift during single fraction.

An in silico planning study comparing doses and estimated risk of toxicity in 3D-CRT, IMRT and proton beam therapy of patients with thymic tumours

PurposeTo compare the dose distributions produced in patients (pts) treated for thymic tumours with spot-scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) implemented with single-field uniform dose (SFUD), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal photon-beam based radiotherapy (3D-CRT). MethodsTwelve pts, treated with 3D-CRT, were included. Alternative IMRT and SFUD plans were constructed. The IMRT plans were created using a setup with beams incident from 5 to 6 different angles. For the SFUD plans, a field-specific planning target volume (PTV) was created for each patient and a clinical target volume (CTV)-based robust optimization was performed. A robustness evaluation was performed for the CTV for all SFUD plans. A dosimetric evaluation was conducted for the doses to the CTV and organs at risk (OARs) for all plans. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), for different endpoints, was calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB)-model and compared between plans. ResultsSFUD was associated with significantly lower mean doses to the oesophagus, the heart, the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), lungs and breasts compared to 3D-CRT and IMRT. The maximum dose given to the spinal cord was significantly lower with SFUD. The risks for pneumonitis, esophagitis and myelopathy were significantly reduced in the SFUD plans. ConclusionsThe present study showed dosimetric advantages of using scanned-beam PBT for the treatment of thymic tumours, as compared to 3D-CRT and IMRT, especially in regard to lower doses to the oesophagus and lungs. The risk of toxicity was reduced with SFUD.

Estimation of Risk of Normal-tissue Toxicity Following Gastric Cancer Radiotherapy with Photon- or Scanned Proton-beams.

Gastric cancer (GC) radiotherapy involves irradiation of large tumour volumes located in the proximities of critical structures. The advantageous dose distributions produced by scanned-proton beams could reduce the irradiated volumes of the organs at risk (OARs). However, treatment-induced side-effects may still appear. The aim of this study was to estimate the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) following proton therapy of GC, compared to photon radiotherapy. Eight GC patients, previously treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), were retrospectively planned with scanned proton beams carried out with the single-field uniform-dose (SFUD) method. A beam-specific planning target volume was used for spot positioning and a clinical target volume (CTV) based robust optimisation was performed considering setup- and range-uncertainties. The dosimetric and NTCP values obtained with the VMAT and SFUD plans were compared. With SFUD, lower or similar dose-volume values were obtained for OARs, compared to VMAT. NTCP values of 0% were determined with the VMAT and SFUD plans for all OARs (p>0.05), except for the left kidney (p<0.05), for which lower toxicity was estimated with SFUD. The NTCP reduction, determined for the left kidney with SFUD, can be of clinical relevance for preserving renal function after radiotherapy of GC.

Comparison of gastric-cancer radiotherapy performed with volumetric modulated arc therapy or single-field uniform-dose proton therapy

Background: Proton-beam therapy of large abdominal cancers has been questioned due to the large variations in tissue density in the abdomen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the importance of these variations for the dose distributions produced in adjuvant radiotherapy of gastric cancer (GC), implemented with photon-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or with proton-beam single-field uniform-dose (SFUD) method.Material and methods: Eight GC patients were included in this study. For each patient, a VMAT- and an SFUD-plan were created. The prescription dose was 45 Gy (IsoE) given in 25 fractions. The plans were prepared on the original CT studies and the doses were thereafter recalculated on two modified CT studies (one with extra water filling and the other with expanded abdominal air-cavity volumes).Results: Compared to the original VMAT plans, the SFUD plans resulted in reduced median values for the V18 of the left kidney (26%), the liver mean dose (14.8 Gy (IsoE)) and the maximum dose given to the spinal cord (26.6 Gy (IsoE)). However, the PTV coverage decreased when the SFUD plans were recalculated on CT sets with extra air- (86%) and water-filling (87%). The added water filling only led to minor dosimetric changes for the OARs, but the extra air caused significant increases of the median values of V18 for the right and left kidneys (10% and 12%, respectively) and of V10 for the liver (12%). The density changes influenced the dose distributions in the VMAT plans to a minor extent.Conclusions: SFUD was found to be superior to VMAT for the plans prepared on the original CT sets. However, SFUD was inferior to VMAT for the modified CT sets.

SU‐E‐T‐765: Treatment Planning Comparison of SFUD Proton and 4Ï€ Radiotherapy for Prostate Cases

Purpose:Single‐Field Uniform Dose (SFUD) proton scanning beams and non‐coplanar 4π intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represent the most advanced treatment methods based on heavy ion and X‐rays, respectively. Here we compare their performance for prostate treatment.Methods:Five prostate patients were planned using 4π radiotherapy and SFUD to an initial dose of 54Gy to a planning target volume (PTV) that encompassed the prostate and seminal vesicles, then a boost prescription dose of 25.2Gy to the prostate for a total dose of 79.2 Gy. 4π plans were created by inversely selecting and optimizing 30 beams from 1162 candidate non‐coplanar beams using a greedy column generation algorithm. The SFUD plans utilized two coplanar, parallel‐opposing lateral scanning beams. The SFUD plan PTV was modified to account for range uncertainties while keeping an evaluation PTV identical to that of the X‐ray plans for comparison. PTV doses, bladder and rectum dose volumes (V40, V45, V60, V70, V75.6, and V80), R50, and PTV homogeneity index (D95/D5) were evaluated.Results:Compared to SFUD, 4π resulted in 6.8% lower high dose spillage as indicated by R50. Bladder and rectum mean doses were 38.3% and 28.2% lower for SFUD, respectively. However, bladder and rectum volumes receiving &gt;70Gy were 13.1% and 12% greater using proton SFUD. Due to the parallel‐opposing beam arrangement, SFUD resulted in greater femoral head (87.8%) and penile bulb doses (43.7%). 4π PTV doses were slightly more homogeneous (HI 0.99 vs. 0.98) than the SFUD dose.Conclusion:Proton is physically advantageous to reduce the irradiated normal volume and mean doses to the rectum and bladder but it is also limited in the beam orientations and entrance dose, which resulted in greater doses to the femoral heads and penile bulb, and larger volumes of rectum and bladder exposed to high dose due to the required robust PTV definition.This project is supported by Varian Medical Systems.

Adjuvant radiation therapy for bladder cancer: A dosimetric comparison of techniques

Trials of adjuvant radiation after cystectomy are under development. There are no studies comparing radiation techniques to inform trial design. This study assesses the effect on bowel and rectal dose of 3 different modalities treating 2 proposed alternative clinical target volumes (CTVs). Contours of the bowel, rectum, CTV-pelvic sidewall (common/internal/external iliac and obturator nodes), and CTV-comprehensive (CTV-pelvic sidewall plus cystectomy bed and presacral regions) were drawn on simulation images of 7 post-cystectomy patients. We optimized 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3-D), intensity-modulated radiation (IMRT), and single-field uniform dose (SFUD) scanning proton plans for each CTV. Mixed models regression was used to compare plans for bowel and rectal volumes exposed to 35% (V35%), 65% (V65%), and 95% (V95%) of the prescribed dose. For any given treatment modality, treating the larger CTV-comprehensive volume compared with treating only the CTV-pelvic sidewall nodes significantly increased rectal dose (V35% rectum, V65% rectum, and V95% rectum; p < 0.001 for all comparisons), but it did not produce significant differences in bowel dose (V95% bowel, V65% bowel, or V35% bowel). The 3-D plans, compared with both the IMRT and the SFUD plans, had a significantly greater V65% bowel and V95% bowel for each proposed CTV (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The effect of treatment modality on rectal dosimetry differed by CTV, but it generally favored the IMRT and the SFUD plans over the 3-D plans. Comparison of the IMRT plan vs the SFUD plan yielded mixed results with no consistent advantage for the SFUD plan over the IMRT plan. Targeting a CTV that spares the cystectomy bed and presacral region may marginally improve rectal toxicity but would not be expected to improve the bowel toxicity associated with any given modality of adjuvant radiation. Using the IMRT or the SFUD plans instead of the 3-D conformal plan may improve both bowel and rectal toxicity.

The effect of surgical titanium rods on proton therapy delivered for cervical bone tumors: experimental validation using an anthropomorphic phantom

To investigate the effect of metal implants in proton radiotherapy, dose distributions of different, clinically relevant treatment plans have been measured in an anthropomorphic phantom and compared to treatment planning predictions. The anthropomorphic phantom, which is sliced into four segments in the cranio-caudal direction, is composed of tissue equivalent materials and contains a titanium implant in a vertebral body in the cervical region. GafChromic® films were laid between the different segments to measure the 2D delivered dose. Three different four-field plans have then been applied: a Single-Field-Uniform-Dose (SFUD) plan, both with and without artifact correction implemented, and an Intensity-Modulated-Proton-Therapy (IMPT) plan with the artifacts corrected. For corrections, the artifacts were manually outlined and the Hounsfield Units manually set to an average value for soft tissue. Results show a surprisingly good agreement between prescribed and delivered dose distributions when artifacts have been corrected, with > 97% and 98% of points fulfilling the gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm for both SFUD and the IMPT plans, respectively. In contrast, without artifact corrections, up to 18% of measured points fail the gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm for the SFUD plan. These measurements indicate that correcting manually for the reconstruction artifacts resulting from metal implants substantially improves the accuracy of the calculated dose distribution.

Impact of Intrafraction and Residual Interfraction Effect on Prostate Proton Pencil Beam Scanning

To quantitatively evaluate the impact of interplay effect and plan robustness associated with intrafraction and residual interfraction prostate motion for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Ten prostate cancer patients with weekly verification CTs underwent pencil beam scanning with the bilateral single-field uniform dose (SFUD) modality. A typical field had 10-15 energy layers and 500-1000 spots. According to their treatment logs, each layer delivery time was <1 s, with average time to change layers of approximately 8 s. Real-time intrafraction prostate motion was determined from our previously reported prospective study using Calypso beacon transponders. Prostate motion and beam delivering sequence of the worst-case scenario patient were synchronized to calculate the "true" dose received by the prostate. The intrafraction effect was examined by applying the worst-case scenario prostate motion on the planning CT, and the residual interfraction effect was examined on the basis of weekly CT scans. The resultant dose variation of target and critical structures was examined to evaluate the interplay effect. The clinical target volume (CTV) coverage was degraded because of both effects. The CTV D99 (percentage dose to 99% of the CTV) varied up to 10% relative to the initial plan in individual fractions. However, over the entire course of treatment the total dose degradation of D99 was 2%-3%, with a standard deviation of <2%. Absolute differences between SFUD, intensity modulate proton therapy, and one-field-per-day SFUD plans were small. The intrafraction effect dominated over the residual interfraction effect for CTV coverage. Mean dose to the anterior rectal wall increased approximately 10% because of combined residual interfraction and intrafraction effects, the interfraction effect being dominant. Both intrafraction and residual interfraction prostate motion degrade CTV coverage within a clinically acceptable level. One-field-per-day SFUD delivered twice is as robust as the bilateral SFUD plan treated daily over the course of treatment.

Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility

BackgroundThis study compares target coverage robustness among proton therapy plans for prostate cancer patients treated with 2 laterally opposed fields delivered daily or, alternatively, every other day as single lateral fields, using uniform scanning (US), single-field uniform dose (SFUD), pencil beam scanning (PBS) optimized for uniform target coverage only, SFUD PBS optimized for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing (SFUD-opt), and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods and materialsTen prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy underwent weekly verification computed tomographic (CT) scans. US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT treatment plans were created and recalculated on weekly verification scans evaluating 2-field daily and single-field target coverage and OAR constraints. ResultsThe average (±standard deviation) planning target volume conformity index for US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT clinical plans was 0.53 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.05, 0.78 ± 0.04, and 0.78 ± 0.03, respectively. The average 2-field internal target volume (ITV) coverage was significantly higher for both US and SFUD when individually compared with SFUD-opt and IMPT. There was no significant difference between US and SFUD ITV coverage when comparing 2-field daily versus single-field daily delivery. The average single-field coverage was greatest using US and SFUD with 99% of the ITV being covered by 96.8% ± 0.9% and 96.7% ± 1.3%, respectively, compared with 95.5% ± 0.7% for SFUD-opt. There were no significant differences among the 4 plans regarding OAR dose constraints assessed. ConclusionsPencil beam scanning techniques are more conformal than US and, when optimized only for uniform target coverage from each field, can be equally as robust relative to anatomic interfraction variations for prostate cancer patients treated with a single field per day technique. The SFUD-opt and IMPT involve highly modulated pencil beam spots and may be less robust to daily interfraction anatomic variations.

SU‐E‐CAMPUS‐T‐05: Validation of High‐Resolution 3D Patient QA for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning and IMPT by Polymer Gel Dosimetry

Purpose:Validation of high‐resolution 3D patient QA for proton pencil beam scanning and IMPT by polymer gel dosimetry.Methods:Four BANG3Pro polymer gel dosimeters (manufactured by MGS Research Inc, Madison, CT) were used for patient QA at the Robert's Proton Therapy Center (RPTC, Philadelphia, PA). All dosimeters were sealed in identical thin‐wall Pyrex glass spheres. Each dosimeter contained a set of markers for 3D registration purposes. The dosimeters were mounted in a consistent and reproducible manner using a custom build holder. Two proton pencil beam scanning plans were designed using Varian Eclipse™ treatment planning system: 1) A two‐field intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan and 2) one single field uniform dose (SFUD) plan. The IMPT fields were evaluated as a composite plan and individual fields, the SFUD plan was delivered as a single field plan.Laser CT scanning was performed using the manufacturer's OCTOPUS‐IQ axial transmission laser CT scanner using a 1 mm slice thickness. 3D registration, analysis, and OD/cm to absorbed dose calibrations were perfomed using DICOM RT‐Dose and CT files, and software developed by the manufacturer. 3D delta index, a metric equivalent to the gamma tool, was used for dose comparison.Results:Very good agreement with single IMPT fields and with SFUD was obtained. Composite IMPT fields had a less satisfactory agreement. The single fields had 3D delta index passing rates (3% dose difference, 3 mm DTA) of 98.98% and 94.91%. The composite 3D delta index passing rate was 80.80%. The SFUD passing rate was 93.77%. Required shifts of the dose distributions were less than 4 mm.Conclusion:A formulation of the BANG3Pro polymer gel dosimeter, suitable for 3D QA of proton patient plans is established and validated. Likewise, the mailed QA analysis service provided by the manufacturer is a practical option when required resources are unavailable.We fully disclose that the subject of this research regards a production of MGS Research, Inc.

TH-C-BRD-11: Robustness of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy for Pelvic Cancer Under Anatomical Changes

Purpose: Pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy provides excellent dosimetric benefits in pelvic cancer treatment, yet day-to-day anatomical variations in pelvic region tend to cause range uncertainties. This study evaluates the dosimetric robustness under anatomical changes for three PBS intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), IMPT using worstcase robust optimization (thereafter ‘Robust IMPT’), and single-field uniform dose (SFUD), in cervical cancer treatment. Methods: IMPT, Robust IMPT, and SFUD plans using the same beam directions and the same prescription (Rx) were generated on computed tomography (CT) images acquired on the simulation day. The dose from each plan was then recomputed on CT images acquired in subsequent two to five weeks using the same protocol. The weekly CTs were registered to the planning CT based on bony anatomy. Target coverage was considered adequate on each weekly CT if dose to 99% of the internal target volume (D_ITV99%) reached at least 95% of the Rx dose. Statistical analysis was then performed on the 21 weekly CT images available for the 7 enrolled patients. Results: Statistically, IMPT was unable to maintain target coverage (mean D_ITV99% = 90.5% Rx, p = 0.004), and SFUD was able to maintain target coverage (mean D_ITV99% = 98.0% Rx, p = 0.0064), in the weeks following simulation. Robust IMPT was able to improve the robustness of IMPT significantly (p < 0.0001), though its maintenance of target coverage was not statistically significant by the 95% Rx criteria (mean D_ITV99% = 96.0%, p = 0.1677). Conclusion: During the multi-week treatment course with anatomical variations, SFUD is robust in terms of maintaining target coverage while IMPT is not. The worst-case optimized Robust IMPT, assuming ±3.5% range uncertainties, improves the robustness of IMPT under anatomical changes significantly, even though it was not designed to account for anatomical changes by mechanism.

Effect of Intrafraction Prostate Motion on Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Delivery: A Quantitative Assessment

To assess the dosimetric impact caused by the interplay between intrafraction prostate motion and the intermittent delivery of proton pencil beam scanning (PBS). A cohort of 10 prostate patients was treated with PBS using a bilateral single-field uniform dose (SFUD) modality. Bilateral intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans were generated for comparison. Because beam-on time in PBS was intermittent, the actual beam-on time was determined from treatment logs. Prostate motion was generalized according to real-time Calypso tracking data from our previously reported prospective photon trial. We investigated potential dose deviations by considering the interplay effect resulting from the worst-case scenario motion and the PBS delivery sequence. For both bilateral-field SFUD and IMPT plans, clinical target volume (CTV) D99%coverage was degraded <2% owing to prostate intrafraction motion when averaged over the course of treatment, but was >10% for the worst fraction. The standard deviation of CTV D99% distribution was approximately 1.2%. The CTV coverage of individual fields in SFUD plans degraded as time elapsed after the initial alignment, owing to prostate drift. Intensity-modulated proton therapy and SFUD demonstrated comparable results when bilateral opposed fields were used. Single-field SFUD plans that were repainted twice, which could reduce half of the treatment time, resulted in similar CTV coverage as bilateral-field plans. Intrafraction prostate motion affects the actual delivered dose to CTV; however, when averaged over the course of treatment, CTV D99% coverage degraded only approximately 2% even for the worst-case scenario. The IMPT plan results are comparable to those of the SFUD plan, and similar coverage can be achieved if treated by SFUD 1 lateral field per day when rescanning the field twice to shorten the treatment time and mitigate intrafraction motion.

TU‐A‐108‐08: Comparison of Full Intensity Modulated and Single Field Uniform Dose Proton Beam Scanning Lung Treatments

Purpose: To determine differences in motion interplay effects between single‐field uniform dose (SFUD) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments for lung patients. Methods: SFUD and IMPT treatment plans were generated for 10 lung cancer patients. The spot spacing was set to 0.7σ for all treatment plans and all plans used 2 fields delivered to the planning target volume (PTV). Treatment plans required that at least 95% of the PTV and 99% of the ICTV received the prescription dose. The ICTV was defined as the IGTV+8mm and covered the CTV in all 10 phases of the 4DCT. SFUD plans require each field homogeneously, within a given tolerance, cover the PTV, whilst IMPT has no such constraint. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the detailed timing structure of the proton fields and the patient 4DCT for 2.5Gy(RBE) and 12Gy(RBE) fractions using 2 different spot sizes (σ ∼8–17mm and ∼2–4mm). Simulations were performed on the different phases of the patient 4DCT. The 4D dose distribution was generated via deformable image registration, using the 50% phase as the reference. Degradation in the dose distributions due to motion and interplay effects was quantified via equivalent uniform dose (EUD), V95 and dose homogeneity. Results: All values are quoted as percentages of the dose per fraction. For 2.5Gy(RBE) fractions, the average EUD loss due to interplay is 3.7+/−3.6% and 4.4+/−3.3% for IMPT and SFUD respectively for the larger spot size. For the smaller spot size, the average EUD loss for IMPT and SFUD treatments is 12.2+/−10.5% and 15.1+/−12.2% respectively. The average EUD loss for 12Gy(RBE) fractions is within 1% of the 2.5Gy(RBE) values. No significant differences between the SFUD and IMPT plans were observed for V95 and target dose homogeneity. Conclusion: No significant difference in motion effects was observed between SFUD and IMPT treatments. This project was supported by the National Cancer Institute Grant No. R01 CA111590

SU-E-T-48: Validation of a Second MU Calculation Program for Proton Treatment

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the monitor unit (MU) calculation procedure for using a factor-based MU calculation program (PennMU). Methods: Double scattering beam (DS) and pencil beam scanning for single field uniform dose (SFUD) monitor units were calculated and compared to those generated by the treatment planning system using PennMU. The algorithm is based on a well-established formula for proton output calculation. All beam data are generated based on the measurement. Pristine percentage depth doses (PDD) for several ranges and off-axis ratio (OAR) at several depths of the pencil proton beam are used. The program can import DICOM RT plans from the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). Results: DS and SFUD plans for various clinical sites were evaluated for patients treated for prostate, pancreas, lung, esophagus, with ranges varying from 10 to 27cm and modulations varying from 5 to 15cm (WEPL). PennMU was used to calculate MU for each field and the results were compared to MU given by the TPS. For prostate cases, were the range is larger (up to 25cm), the agreement between PennMU and TPS are up to 2%. Larger errors (of up to 5%) were seen for ranges smaller than 23cm. Conclusions: Differences in the calculated and measured values of MU are within 5% (with variations of 2% for ranges up to 23cm). This algorithm is ideally suitable for calculating patient-specific MU for double scattering and pencil-beam based treatment planning system for protons.

Is it necessary to plan with safety margins for actively scanned proton therapy?

In radiation therapy, a plan is robust if the calculated and the delivered dose are in agreement, even in the case of different uncertainties. The current practice is to use safety margins, expanding the clinical target volume sufficiently enough to account for treatment uncertainties. This, however, might not be ideal for proton therapy and in particular when using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans as degradation in the dose conformity could also be found in the middle of the target resulting from misalignments of highly in-field dose gradients. Single field uniform dose (SFUD) and IMPT plans have been calculated for different anatomical sites and the need for margins has been assessed by analyzing plan robustness to set-up and range uncertainties. We found that the use of safety margins is a good way to improve plan robustness for SFUD and IMPT plans with low in-field dose gradients but not necessarily for highly modulated IMPT plans for which only a marginal improvement in plan robustness could be detected through the definition of a planning target volume.