Daniels, Thomas B

Abstract Purpose The multiple energy extraction (MEE) delivery technique for synchrotron‐based proton delivery systems reduces beam delivery time by decelerating the beam multiple times during one accelerator spill, but this might cause additional plan quality degradation due to intrafractional motion. We seek to determine whether MEE causes significantly different plan quality degradation compared to single energy extraction (SEE) for lung cancer treatments due to the interplay effect. Methods Ten lung cancer patients treated with IMPT at our institution were nonrandomly sampled based on a representative range of tumor motion amplitudes, tumor volumes, and respiratory periods. Dose‐volume histogram (DVH) indices from single‐fraction SEE and MEE four‐dimensional (4D) dynamic dose distributions were compared using the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Distributions of monitor units (MU) to breathing phases were investigated for features associated with plan quality degradation. SEE and MEE DVH indices were compared in fractionated deliveries of the worst‐case patient treatment scenario to evaluate the impact of fractionation. Results There were no clinically significant differences in target mean dose, target dose conformity, or dose to organs‐at‐risk between SEE and MEE in single‐fraction delivery. Three patients had significantly worse dose homogeneity with MEE compared to SEE (single‐fraction mean D 5% ‐D 95% increased by up to 9.6% of prescription dose), and plots of MU distribution to breathing phases showed synchronization patterns with MEE but not SEE. However, after 30 fractions the patient in the worst‐case scenario had clinically acceptable target dose homogeneity and coverage with MEE (mean D 5% –D 95% increased by 1% compared to SEE). Conclusions For some patients with breathing periods close to the mean spill duration, MEE resulted in significantly worse single‐fraction target dose homogeneity compared to SEE due to the interplay effect. However, this was mitigated by fractionation, and target dose homogeneity and coverage were clinically acceptable after 30 fractions with MEE.

Purpose Intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is sensitive to uncertainties from patient setup and proton beam range, as well as interplay effect. In addition, respiratory motion may vary from cycle to cycle, and also from day to day. These uncertainties can severely degrade the original plan quality and potentially affect patient’s outcome. In this work, we developed a new tool to comprehensively consider the impact of all these uncertainties and provide plan robustness evaluation under them. Methods We developed a comprehensive plan robustness evaluation tool that considered both uncertainties from patient setup and proton beam range, as well as respiratory motion simultaneously. To mimic patients' respiratory motion, the time spent in each phase was randomly sampled based on patient‐specific breathing pattern parameters as acquired during the four‐dimensional (4D)‐computed tomography (CT) simulation. Spots were then assigned to one specific phase according to the temporal relationship between spot delivery sequence and patients’ respiratory motion. Dose in each phase was calculated by summing contributions from all the spots delivered in that phase. The final 4D dynamic dose was obtained by deforming all doses in each phase to the maximum exhalation phase. Three hundred (300) scenarios (10 different breathing patterns with 30 different setup and range uncertainty scenario combinations) were calculated for each plan. The dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) band method was used to assess plan robustness. Benchmarking the tool as an application’s example, we compared plan robustness under both three‐dimensional (3D) and 4D robustly optimized IMPT plans for 10 nonrandomly selected patients with non‐small cell lung cancer. Results The developed comprehensive plan robustness tool had been successfully applied to compare the plan robustness between 3D and 4D robustly optimized IMPT plans for 10 lung cancer patients. In the presence of interplay effect with uncertainties considered simultaneously, 4D robustly optimized plans provided significantly better CTV coverage (D 95% , P = 0.002), CTV homogeneity (D 5% ‐D 95% , P = 0.002) with less target hot spots (D 5% , P = 0.002), and target coverage robustness (CTV D 95% bandwidth, P = 0.004) compared to 3D robustly optimized plans. Superior dose sparing of normal lung (lung D mean , P = 0.020) favoring 4D plans and comparable normal tissue sparing including esophagus, heart, and spinal cord for both 3D and 4D plans were observed. The calculation time for all patients included in this study was 11.4 ± 2.6 min. Conclusion A comprehensive plan robustness evaluation tool was successfully developed and benchmarked for plan robustness evaluation in the presence of interplay effect, setup and range uncertainties. The very high efficiency of this tool marks its clinical adaptation, highly practical and versatile nature, including possible real‐time intra‐fractional interplay effect evaluation as a potential application for future use.

PurposeApproximate dose calculation methods were used in the nominal dose distribution and the perturbed dose distributions due to uncertainties in a commercial treatment planning system (CTPS) for robust optimization in intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We aimed to investigate whether the approximations influence plan quality, robustness, and interplay effect of the resulting IMPT plans for the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer patients.Materials and methodsTen consecutively treated locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were selected. Two IMPT plans were created for each patient using our in‐house developed TPS, named “Solo,” and also the CTPS, EclipseTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively. The plans were designed to deliver prescription doses to internal target volumes (ITV) drawn by a physician on averaged four‐dimensional computed tomography (4D‐CT). Solo plans were imported back to CTPS, and recalculated in CTPS for fair comparison. Both plans were further verified for each patient by recalculating doses in the inhalation and exhalation phases to ensure that all plans met clinical requirements. Plan robustness was quantified on all phases using dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) indices in the worst‐case scenario. The interplay effect was evaluated for every plan using an in‐house developed software, which randomized starting phases of each field per fraction and accumulated dose in the exhalation phase based on the patient's breathing motion pattern and the proton spot delivery in a time‐dependent fashion. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test.ResultsCompared to the plans generated using CTPS on the averaged CT, Solo plans had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity (normalized by the prescription dose) in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.04% vs 96.28%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.020; ITV D5%–D95%: 7.20% vs 9.03%, P = 0.049] while all DVH indices were comparable in the nominal scenario. On the inhalation phase, Solo plans had better target dose coverage and cord Dmax in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.36% vs 98.45%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.014; cord Dmax: 20.07 vs 23.71 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027] with better target coverage and cord Dmax in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 97.89% vs 96.47%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 24.57 vs 28.14 Gy(RBE), P = 0.037]. On the exhalation phase, similar phenomena were observed in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.63% vs 98.87%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 19.67 vs 23.66 Gy(RBE), P = 0.039] and in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.20% vs 96.74%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.027; cord Dmax: 23.47 vs 27.93 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027]. In terms of interplay effect, plans generated by Solo had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity, less hot spots, and lower esophageal Dmean, and cord Dmax [ITV D95%: 101.81% vs 98.68%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.002; ITV D5%–D95%: 2.94% vs 7.51%, P = 0.002; cord Dmax: 18.87 vs 22.29 Gy(RBE), P = 0.014].ConclusionsSolo‐generated IMPT plans provide improved cord sparing, better target robustness in all considered phases, and reduced interplay effect compared with CTPS. Consequently, the approximation methods currently used in commercial TPS programs may have space for improvement in generating optimal IMPT plans for patient cases with locally advanced lung cancer.

Abstract Background Guidelines to provide recommendations about driving restrictions for patients with brain metastases are lacking. We aim to determine whether clinical neurologic examination is sufficient to predict suitability to drive in these patients by comparison with an occupational therapy driving assessment (OTDA). Methods We prospectively evaluated the concordance between neurology assessment of suitability to drive (pass/fail) and OTDA in 41 individuals with brain metastases. Neuro-oncology evaluation included an interview and neurological examination. Participants subsequently underwent OTDA during which a battery of objective measures of visual, cognitive, and motor skills related to driving was administered. Results The mean age of patients who failed OTDA was age 68.9 years vs 59.3 years in the group members who passed (P = .0046). The sensitivity of the neurology assessment to predict driving fitness compared with OTDA was 16.1% and the specificity 90%. The 31 patients who failed OTDA were more likely to fail Vision Coach, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Trail Making B tests. Conclusions There was poor association between the assessment of suitability to drive by neurologists and the outcome of the OTDA in patients with brain metastases. Subtle deficits that may impair the ability to drive safely may not be evident on neurologic examination. The positive predictive value was high to predict OTDA failure. Age could be a factor affecting OTDA performance. The results raise questions about the choice of assessments in making recommendations about driving fitness in people with brain metastases. OTDA should be strongly considered in patients with brain metastases who wish to continue driving.

AbstractPurposeTo compare dosimetric performance of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy for stage III non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods and MaterialsA total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D‐CTs. The dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsCompared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax, heart Dmean, and lung V5 Gy[RBE] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean, but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax, lung Dmean, and V5 Gy[RBE]. Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has a high predilection for metastasizing to the brain after chemotherapy. This has been blamed on the blood-brain barrier, which prevents chemotherapy from penetrating into the brain, thus creating a sanctuary site. It has been estimated that up to three quarters of patients with SCLC will eventually develop brain metastases. This led investigators to administer prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) to decrease this risk. Several trials were performed in patients with SCLC after initial therapy (chemotherapy with or without thoracic radiotherapy) that compared the outcomes of PCI versus no PCI. Early trials generally found that PCI significantly decreased the risk of brain metastases but did not significantly improve survival. These trials were re-evaluated in two larger meta-analyses that included patients with either limited-stage SCLC or extensive-stage SCLC (ESCLC). Both meta-analyses reported that PCI significantly decreased brain metastases and improved survival in patients who had a complete response following initial therapy. These studies were performed before the advent of modern imaging with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). There have been two modern trials of PCI versus no PCI in patients with ESCLC and both found that PCI decreases brain metastases. The first did not include brain MRI before registration and found that PCI improved survival, whereas the second study did include MRI before registration and at frequent intervals thereafter. That trial found that PCI did not confer a survival advantage. This review will examine the evidence and provide recommendations regarding the role of PCI for patients with ESCLC.

Odontogenic ghost cell carcinoma (OGCC) is a rare and aggressive tumor wherein optimal treatment remains uncertain. We report the first pediatric metastatic OGCC case treated with multimodal therapy: surgery, adjuvant chemoradiation, and adjuvant immunotherapy. Adjuvant therapy was utilized due to locally advanced disease with pathologic features indicative of high recurrence risk. This multimodal approach was modeled after management of primary head and neck cancer, where adjuvant chemoradiation and immunotherapy are associated with improved outcomes. Our patient is alive and disease free at 14 months indicating a potentially positive role for multimodal therapy in the management of OGCC.