Shen, Jiajian

Abstract Background Accurate and efficient dose calculation is essential for online adaptive planning in proton therapy. Deep learning (DL) has shown promising dose prediction results for pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) in recent years, but existing DL‐based dose prediction methods still suffer from limited generalizability and an inability to effectively handle outlier clinical cases. This may lead to inaccurate dose delivery to targets or excessive irradiation to organs at risk (OARs), thereby compromising the safety and efficacy of online adaptive proton therapy. Purpose To design a physics‐aware and generalizable AI‐based PBSPT dose prediction method that incorporates underlying physics to enhance generalizability, particularly in handling outlier clinical cases. Methods This study analyzed PBSPT plans of 103 prostate (93 for training and 10 for testing) and 78 lung cancer patients (68 for training and 10 for testing) from our institution, with each case comprising CT images and structure sets. Using the doses generated by our Monte Carlo‐based dose engine as the reference standard, we compared three methods: the region of interest (ROI)‐based method, the beam mask and sliding window method, and the proposed noisy probing dose method, which rapidly generates a low‐statistics dose via uniformly weighted spots on an expanded spot‐placement target volume without optimization. To evaluate the generalizability of these methods to rare treatment planning scenarios, 12 cases with uncommon beam angles or prescription doses were used to assess their performance, which was evaluated using dose‐volume histogram (DVH) indices, 3D Gamma passing rates (3%/2 mm/10%), and Dice coefficients for dose agreement, while prediction times were measured to gauge model efficiency. Results The proposed noisy probing dose method consistently outperformed the ROI‐based and beam mask baselines across all evaluated metrics, with more accurate dose agreement and superior generalizability. For DVH indices, the noisy probing dose method achieved the smallest deviation in clinical target volume (CTV) dose coverage: in prostate cancer, CTV D98 deviation was reduced by 45% (from 0.53 ± 0.22 Gy [RBE] for ROI‐based) and 29% (from 0.41 ± 0.28 Gy [RBE] for beam mask) to 0.29 ± 0.06 Gy [RBE]; in lung cancer, similar improvements were observed, with CTV D98 deviations reduced to 0.34 ± 0.12 Gy [RBE]. The 3D Gamma passing rates improved to 99.65% ± 1.15% for prostate targets and 97.04% ± 1.17% for lung targets. The dice coefficients of the 90% iso‐dose lines were also the highest with the noisy probing dose method (prostate: 0.983 ± 0.005; lung: 0.967 ± 0.01). For the 12 outlier cases, the noisy probing dose method maintained superior generalizability, yielding higher 3D Gamma passing rates (prostate targets: 96.79% ± 0.83%, OARs: 94.29% ± 1.01%; lung targets: 93.38% ± 1.34%, OARs: 93.95% ± 1.32%), demonstrating robust generalizability to rare clinical scenarios. The dose predictions for all testing cases were completed within 0.3 seconds. Conclusions A novel noisy probing dose method was proposed for PBSPT dose prediction in prostate and lung cancer patients. By embedding more proton‐specific physics, this method demonstrated an improvement in the generalizability of dose prediction.

Introduction Proton dose driven continuous scanning (DDCS) is a form of proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) in which the beam may remain on during transitions between successive spots. Mayo Clinic Florida (MCF) is preparing to commission a synchrotron-based proton therapy system designed for DDCS, incorporating novel irradiation control features. Given the novelty and complexity of this system, a systematic risk-based analysis was performed to inform upcoming commissioning strategies. Methods A prospective risk analysis was conducted using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 100 (TG 100) framework. A comprehensive process map of the DDCS irradiation control workflow was developed. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was performed to identify potential delivery system failure modes and to score each failure mode based on occurrence, severity, and lack of detectability. Targeted mitigation and commissioning strategies were then developed to address the highest-risk items. Results Twenty-nine delivery system failure modes were identified. The highest-risk failure modes were specific to DDCS operation. Targeted commissioning strategies were defined, including scan path measurement and modeling, validation of move and flap dose, dose monitor collection efficiency testing, spot position monitor performance evaluation, and verification of control system intervention behavior. Incorporation of these strategies into the commissioning plan reduced the mean RPN by more than 50%. Discussion This work provides a detailed description of the MCF proton DDCS irradiation control system and uses a TG 100 based approach for identifying system-specific risks. As new systems incorporate technologies for which limited guidance exists, institutions must perform their own risk analyses to determine appropriate quality management strategies.

Abstract Background Standardizing beam modeling in the treatment planning system is challenging due to machine‐specific configuration variations. Because of the proton therapy system (PTS) complexity and continuous development, there is no vendor's representative (“golden”) beam data like in LINACs at this stage. Purpose The primary goal of this study is to create a PTS‐specific repository of source model parameters and beam commissioning data for scanning proton therapy treatment planning systems and establish a set of reference values with associated bands of variations for this data. Methods We conducted a survey of 31 PTSs at 27 proton therapy centers to gather beam commissioning source model parameters used in their treatment planning system, ensuring a diverse selection of PTSs from major vendors: Hitachi, IBA, Varian, and Mevion. For each proton therapy center, we collected (i) beam meterset calibration in protons per MU, (ii) in‐air spot size at isocenter in terms of standard deviation in x‐ (crossline, σ x ) and y‐ (inline, σ y ) directions, (iii) in‐air angular spread at isocenter in x‐direction (θ x ) and y‐direction (θ y ) and (iv) distal falloff. For each PTS, we plotted each parameter as a function of nominal energy and performed polynomial regression analysis with optimal model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to quantify inter‐PTS variability and generated uncertainty bands representing standard deviations across PTSs for each parameter. Additionally, we computed percentage deviations of each individual PTS from the overall multi‐vendor mean to identify systematic vendor‐specific patterns and outliers across the 31 total PTSs analyzed. Results Multi‐vendor beam parameter analysis across 31 PTSs revealed systematic vendor‐specific patterns in inter‐PTS consistency and energy dependencies. Beam meterset calibration demonstrated excellent inter‐PTS consistency across most vendors (ICC: Varian ProBeam ≈ 0, IBA Proteus ONE = 0.006, Mevion S250i with HYPERSCAN = 0.015), with IBA Proteus PLUS systems showing moderate variation (ICC = 0.156 for the dedicated nozzle, ICC = 0.248, for the universal nozzle). Spot size and angular spread variability were highly vendor‐dependent, ranging from excellent consistency in IBA Proteus ONE to substantial variation in IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle (angular spread ICC = 0.566). Distal falloff maintained excellent consistency across all vendors (ICC < 0.023), indicating reliable energy spread characteristics. Uncertainty band analysis revealed characteristic energy‐dependent patterns, with most systems showing larger uncertainties at lower energies for spot size and angular spread, while IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle exhibited the largest uncertainty bands overall. Percentage deviation analysis demonstrated vendor‐specific clustering patterns, with some systems showing systematic positive or negative deviations from the multi‐vendor mean. Conclusions The reference data provided in this work will help to cross‐check the beam model during treatment planning system commissioning. Furthermore, this information is useful for Monte Carlo applications and research, where beam characteristics are required to set up phase space parameters, thereby avoiding the need to model the entire PTS. Finally, the results of this study will have indispensable educational value by providing valuable insights into the characteristics and capabilities of different PTSs.

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.

Abstract Background In breast cancer patients treated with pencil‐beam scanning proton therapy (PBS), the increased linear energy transfer (LET) near the end of the proton range can affect nearby ribs. This may associate with a higher risk of rib fractures. Purpose To study the effect of LET on rib fracture in breast cancer patients treated with PBS using a novel tool of dose‐LET volume histogram (DLVH). Methods From a prospective registry of patients treated with post‐mastectomy proton therapy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes for breast cancer between 2015 and 2020, we retrospectively identified rib fracture cases detected after completing treatment. Contemporaneously treated control patients who did not develop rib fracture were matched to patients 2:1 considering prescription dose, boost location, reconstruction status, laterality, chest wall thickness, and treatment year. The DLVH index, V (d, l), defined as volume( V ) of the structure with at least dose(d) and dose‐averaged LET (l) (LETd), was calculated. DLVH plots between the fracture and control group were compared. Conditional logistic regression (CLR) model was used to establish the relation of V (d, l) and the observed fracture at each combination of d and l . The p ‐value derived from CLR model shows the statistical difference between fracture patients and the matched control group. Using the 2D p ‐value map derived from CLR model, the DLVH features associated with the patient outcomes were extracted. Results Seven rib fracture patients were identified, and fourteen matched patients were selected for the control group. The median time from the completion of proton therapy to rib fracture diagnosis was 12 months (range 5–14 months). Two patients had grade 2 symptomatic rib fracture while the remaining 5 were grade 1 incidentally detected on imaging. The derived p ‐value map demonstrated larger V (0–36 Gy[RBE], 4.0–5.0 keV/µm) in patients experiencing fracture ( p < 0.1). For example, the p ‐value for V (30 Gy[RBE], 4.0 keV/um) was 0.069. Conclusion In breast cancer patients receiving PBS, a larger volume of chest wall receiving moderate dose and high LETd may result in an increased risk of rib fracture.

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and plan quality of spot‐scanning proton arc therapy (SPArc) using a synchrotron‐accelerator‐based proton therapy system compared to intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT).ApproachFive representative disease sites, including head and neck, lung, liver, brain chordoma, and prostate cancers, were retrospectively selected. Both IMPT and SPArc plans are generated with the HITACHI ProBEAT PBS system's minimum MU constraints and physics beam model. The SPArc plans are generated with 2.5° sampling frequency. The static delivery time was simulated based on the previously published synchrotron delivery sequence model, and the dynamic delivery time was simulated using a proton arc gantry mechanical model integrated with the synchrotron delivery sequence. Both dosimetric plan quality and delivery efficiency are evaluated.Main resultsA superior plan quality is reached compared with the IMPT plans generated for the same disease site. However, a relatively prolonged static and dynamic delivery time post new challenge, as static time increased by 49.22% and dynamic time 59.10% on average.SignificanceThis study presents the first simulation results of delivering the SPArc plans using a synchrotron‐accelerated proton therapy system. The result shows its feasibility and limitations, which could guide future development.

AbstractPurposeThe time structures of proton spot delivery in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) radiation therapy are essential in many clinical applications. This study aims to characterize the time structures of proton PBS delivered by both synchrotron and synchrocyclotron accelerators using a non‐invasive technique based on scattered particle tracking.MethodsA pixelated semiconductor detector, AdvaPIX‐Timepix3, with a temporal resolution of 1.56 ns, was employed to measure time of arrival of secondary particles generated by a proton beam. The detector was placed laterally to the high‐flux area of the beam in order to allow for single particle detection and not interfere with the treatment. The detector recorded counts of radiation events, their deposited energy and the timestamp associated with the single events. Individual recorded events and their temporal characteristics were used to analyze beam time structures, including energy layer switch time, magnet switch time, spot switch time, and the scanning speeds in the x and y directions. All the measurements were repeated 30 times on three dates, reducing statistical uncertainty.ResultsThe uncertainty of the measured energy layer switch times, magnet switch time, and the spot switch time were all within 1% of average values. The scanning speeds uncertainties were within 1.5% and are more precise than previously reported results. The measurements also revealed continuous sub‐milliseconds proton spills at a low dose rate for the synchrotron accelerator and radiofrequency pulses at 7 µs and 1 ms repetition time for the synchrocyclotron accelerator.ConclusionThe AdvaPIX‐Timepix3 detector can be used to directly measure and monitor time structures on microseconds scale of the PBS proton beam delivery. This method yielded results with high precision and is completely independent of the machine log files.

Abstract Background Rescanning is a common technique used in proton pencil beam scanning to mitigate the interplay effect. Advances in machine operating parameters across different generations of particle therapy systems have led to improvements in beam delivery time (BDT). However, the potential impact of these improvements on the effectiveness of rescanning remains an underexplored area in the existing research. Methods We systematically investigated the impact of proton machine operating parameters on the effectiveness of layer rescanning in mitigating interplay effect during lung SBRT treatment, using the CIRS phantom. Focused on the Hitachi synchrotron particle therapy system, we explored machine operating parameters from our institution's current (2015) and upcoming systems (2025A and 2025B). Accumulated dynamic 4D dose were reconstructed to assess the interplay effect and layer rescanning effectiveness. Results Achieving target coverage and dose homogeneity within 2% deviation required 6, 6, and 20 times layer rescanning for the 2015, 2025A, and 2025B machine parameters, respectively. Beyond this point, further increasing the number of layer rescanning did not further improve the dose distribution. BDTs without rescanning were 50.4, 24.4, and 11.4 s for 2015, 2025A, and 2025B, respectively. However, after incorporating proper number of layer rescanning (six for 2015 and 2025A, 20 for 2025B), BDTs increased to 67.0, 39.6, and 42.3 s for 2015, 2025A, and 2025B machine parameters. Our data also demonstrated the potential problem of false negative and false positive if the randomness of the respiratory phase at which the beam is initiated is not considered in the evaluation of interplay effect. Conclusion The effectiveness of layer rescanning for mitigating interplay effect is affected by machine operating parameters. Therefore, past clinical experiences may not be applicable to modern machines.

Abstract Purpose . To enhance an in-house graphic-processing-unit accelerated virtual particle (VP)-based Monte Carlo (MC) proton dose engine (VPMC) to model aperture blocks in both dose calculation and optimization for pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT)-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Methods and materials . A module to simulate VPs passing through patient-specific aperture blocks was developed and integrated in VPMC based on simulation results of realistic particles (primary protons and their secondaries). To validate the aperture block module, VPMC was first validated by an opensource MC code, MCsquare, in eight water phantom simulations with 3 cm thick brass apertures: four were with aperture openings of 1, 2, 3, and 4 cm without a range shifter, while the other four were with same aperture opening configurations with a range shifter of 45 mm water equivalent thickness. Then, VPMC was benchmarked with MCsquare and RayStation MC for 10 patients with small targets (average volume 8.4 c.c. with range of 0.4–43.3 c.c.). Finally, 3 typical patients were selected for robust optimization with aperture blocks using VPMC. Results . In the water phantoms, 3D gamma passing rate (2%/2 mm/10%) between VPMC and MCsquare was 99.71 ± 0.23%. In the patient geometries, 3D gamma passing rates (3%/2 mm/10%) between VPMC/MCsquare and RayStation MC were 97.79 ± 2.21%/97.78 ± 1.97%, respectively. Meanwhile, the calculation time was drastically decreased from 112.45 ± 114.08 s (MCsquare) to 8.20 ± 6.42 s (VPMC) with the same statistical uncertainties of ~0.5%. The robustly optimized plans met all the dose–volume-constraints (DVCs) for the targets and OARs per our institutional protocols. The mean calculation time for 13 influence matrices in robust optimization by VPMC was 41.6 s and the subsequent on-the-fly ‘trial-and-error’ optimization procedure took only 71.4 s on average for the selected three patients. Conclusion . VPMC has been successfully enhanced to model aperture blocks in dose calculation and optimization for the PBSPT-based SRS.

AbstractBackgroundAccurate and efficient dose calculation is essential for on‐line adaptive planning in proton therapy. Deep learning (DL) has shown promising dose prediction results in photon therapy. However, there is a scarcity of DL‐based dose prediction methods specifically designed for proton therapy. Successful dose prediction method for proton therapy should account for more challenging dose prediction problems in pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) due to its sensitivity to heterogeneities.PurposeTo develop a DL‐based PBSPT dose prediction workflow with high accuracy and balanced complexity to support on‐line adaptive proton therapy clinical decision and subsequent replanning.MethodsPBSPT plans of 103 prostate cancer patients (93 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) and 83 lung cancer patients (73 for training and the other 10 for independent testing) previously treated at our institution were included in the study, each with computed tomography scans (CTs), structure sets, and plan doses calculated by the in‐house developed Monte‐Carlo dose engine (considered as the ground truth in the model training and testing). For the ablation study, we designed three experiments corresponding to the following three methods: (1) Experiment 1, the conventional region of interest (ROI) (composed of targets and organs‐at‐risk [OARs]) method. (2) Experiment 2, the beam mask (generated by raytracing of proton beams) method to improve proton dose prediction. (3) Experiment 3, the sliding window method for the model to focus on local details to further improve proton dose prediction. A fully connected 3D‐Unet was adopted as the backbone. Dose volume histogram (DVH) indices, 3D Gamma passing rates with a criterion of 3%/3 mm/10%, and dice coefficients for the structures enclosed by the iso‐dose lines between the predicted and the ground truth doses were used as the evaluation metrics. The calculation time for each proton dose prediction was recorded to evaluate the method's efficiency.ResultsCompared to the conventional ROI method, the beam mask method improved the agreement of DVH indices for both targets and OARs and the sliding window method further improved the agreement of the DVH indices (for lung cancer, CTV D98 absolute deviation: 0.74 ± 0.18 vs. 0.57 ± 0.21 vs. 0.54 ± 0.15 Gy[RBE], ROI vs. beam mask vs. sliding window methods, respectively). For the 3D Gamma passing rates in the target, OARs, and BODY (outside target and OARs), the beam mask method improved the passing rates in these regions and the sliding window method further improved them (for prostate cancer, targets: 96.93% ± 0.53% vs. 98.88% ± 0.49% vs. 99.97% ± 0.07%, BODY: 86.88% ± 0.74% vs. 93.21% ± 0.56% vs. 95.17% ± 0.59%). A similar trend was also observed for the dice coefficients. This trend was especially remarkable for relatively low prescription isodose lines (for lung cancer, 10% isodose line dice: 0.871 ± 0.027 vs. 0.911 ± 0.023 vs. 0.927 ± 0.017). The dose predictions for all the testing cases were completed within 0.25 s.ConclusionsAn accurate and efficient deep learning‐augmented proton dose prediction framework has been developed for PBSPT, which can predict accurate dose distributions not only inside but also outside ROI efficiently. The framework can potentially further reduce the initial planning and adaptive replanning workload in PBSPT.