Lin, Liyong

Background/Objectives: Proton therapy delivers highly conformal doses to the target area without producing an exit dose, minimizing cumulative doses to healthy liver tissue. This study aims to evaluate current practices, challenges, and variations in the implementation of proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and hypofractionated therapy for liver malignancies, with the goal of providing a technical assessment to promote broader adoption and support future clinical trials. Methods and Materials: An extensive survey was conducted by NRG Oncology across North American proton treatment centers to assess the current practices of proton liver SBRT and hypofractionated therapy. The survey focused on key aspects, including patient selection, prescription and normal tissue constraints, simulation and motion management, treatment planning, quality assurance (QA), treatment delivery, and the use of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Results: This survey captures the current practice patterns and status of proton SBRT and hypofractionated therapy in liver cancer treatment. Proton therapy is increasingly preferred for treating inoperable liver malignancies due to its ability to minimize healthy tissue exposure. However, the precision required for proton therapy presents challenges, particularly in managing uncertainties and target motion during high-dose fractions and short treatment courses. Survey findings revealed significant variability in clinical practices across centers, highlighting differences in motion management, dose fractionation schedules, and QA protocols. Conclusion: Proton SBRT and hypofractionated therapy offer significant potential for treating liver malignancies. A comprehensive approach involving precise patient selection, treatment planning, and QA is essential for ensuring safety and effectiveness. This survey provides valuable insights into current practices and challenges, offering a foundation for technical recommendations to optimize the use of proton therapy and guide future clinical trials.

AbstractPurposeMetallic implants have been correlated to local control failure for spinal sarcoma and chordoma patients due to the uncertainty of implant delineation from computed tomography (CT). Such uncertainty can compromise the proton Monte Carlo dose calculation (MCDC) accuracy. A component method is proposed to determine the dimension and volume of the implants from CT images.MethodsThe proposed component method leverages the knowledge of surgical implants from medical supply vendors to predefine accurate contours for each implant component, including tulips, screw bodies, lockers, and rods. A retrospective patient study was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the method. The reference implant materials and samples were collected from patient medical records and vendors, Medtronic and NuVasive. Additional CT images with extensive features, such as extended Hounsfield units and various reconstruction diameters, were used to quantify the uncertainty of implant contours.ResultsFor in vivo patient implant estimation, the reference and the component method differences were 0.35, 0.17, and 0.04 cm3for tulips, screw bodies, and rods, respectively. The discrepancies by a conventional threshold method were 5.46, 0.76, and 0.05 cm3, respectively. The mischaracterization of implant materials and dimensions can underdose the clinical target volume coverage by 20 cm3for a patient with eight lumbar implants. The tulip dominates the dosimetry uncertainty as it can be made from titanium or cobalt–chromium alloys by different vendors.ConclusionsA component method was developed and demonstrated using phantom and patient studies with implants. The proposed method provides more accurate implant characterization for proton MCDC and can potentially enhance the treatment quality for proton therapy. The current proof‐of‐concept study is limited to the implant characterization for lumbar spine. Future investigations could be extended to cervical spine and dental implants for head‐and‐neck patients where tight margins are required to spare organs at risk.

Abstract Dose uncertainty induced by respiratory motion remains a major concern for treating thoracic and abdominal lesions using particle beams. This Task Group report reviews the impact of tumor motion and dosimetric considerations in particle radiotherapy, current motion‐management techniques, and limitations for different particle‐beam delivery modes (i.e., passive scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil‐beam scanning). Furthermore, the report provides guidance and risk analysis for quality assurance of the motion‐management procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy, and discusses future development and emerging motion‐management strategies. This report supplements previously published AAPM report TG76, and considers aspects of motion management that are crucial to the accurate and safe delivery of particle‐beam therapy. To that end, this report produces general recommendations for commissioning and facility‐specific dosimetric characterization, motion assessment, treatment planning, active and passive motion‐management techniques, image guidance and related decision‐making, monitoring throughout therapy, and recommendations for vendors. Key among these recommendations are that: (1) facilities should perform thorough planning studies (using retrospective data) and develop standard operating procedures that address all aspects of therapy for any treatment site involving respiratory motion; (2) a risk‐based methodology should be adopted for quality management and ongoing process improvement.

BACKGROUNDExisting data supporting the use of proton‐beam therapy (PBT) for limited‐stage small cell lung cancer (LS‐SCLC) are limited to a single 6‐patient case series. This is the first prospective study to evaluate clinical outcomes and toxicities of PBT for LS‐SCLC.METHODSThis study prospectively analyzed patients with primary, nonrecurrent LS‐SCLC definitively treated with PBT and concurrent chemotherapy from 2011 to 2016. Clinical backup intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were generated for each patient and were compared with PBT plans. Outcome measures included local control (LC), recurrence‐free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) rates and toxicities.RESULTSThirty consecutive patients were enrolled and evaluated. The median dose was 63.9 cobalt gray equivalents (range, 45‐66.6 cobalt gray equivalents) in 33 to 37 fractions delivered daily (n = 18 [60.0%]) or twice daily (n = 12 [40.0%]). The concurrent chemotherapy was cisplatin/etoposide (n = 21 [70.0%]) or carboplatin/etoposide (n = 9 [30.0%]). In comparison with the backup IMRT plans, PBT allowed statistically significant reductions in the cord, heart, and lung mean doses and the volume receiving at least 5 Gy but not in the esophagus mean dose or the lung volume receiving at least 20 Gy. At a median follow‐up of 14 months, the 1‐/2‐year LC and RFS rates were 85%/69% and 63%/42%, respectively. The median OS was 28.2 months, and the 1‐/2‐year OS rates were 72%/58%. There was 1 case each (3.3%) of grade 3 or higher esophagitis, pneumonitis, anorexia, and pericardial effusion. Grade 2 pneumonitis and esophagitis were seen in 10.0% and 43.3% of patients, respectively.CONCLUSIONSIn the first prospective registry study and largest analysis to date of PBT for LS‐SCLC, PBT was found to be safe with a limited incidence of high‐grade toxicities. Cancer 2017;123:4244–4251. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Because treatment planning systems (TPSs) generally do not provide monitor units (MUs) for double‐scattered proton plans, models to predict MUs as a function of the range and the nominal modulation width requested of the beam delivery system, such as the one developed by the MGH group, have been proposed. For a given nominal modulation width, however, the measured modulation width depends on the accuracy of the vendor's calibration process and may differ from this nominal value, and also from one beamline to the next. Although such a difference can be replicated in our TPS, the output dependence on range and modulation width for each beam option or suboption has to be modeled separately for each beamline in order to achieve maximal 3% inaccuracy. As a consequence, the MGH output model may not be directly transferable. This work, therefore, serves to extend the model to more general clinic situations. In this paper, a parameterized linear‐quadratic transformation is introduced to convert the nominal modulation width to the measured modulation width for each beam option or suboption on a per‐beamline basis. Fit parameters are derived for each beamline from measurements of 60 reference beams spanning the minimum and maximum ranges, and modulation widths from 2 cm to full range per option or suboption. Using the modeled modulation width, we extract the MGH parameters for the output dependence on range and modulation width. Our method has been tested with 1784 patient‐specific fields delivered across three different beamlines at our facility. For these fields, all measured outputs fall within 3%, and 64.4% fall within 1%, of our model. Using a parameterized linear‐quadratic modulation width, MU calculation models can be established on a per‐beamline basis for each double scattering beam option or suboption.PACS number: 87.53.Qc