Lentz, Jarrod M.

Background/Objectives: Adjuvant radiation for gynecologic malignancies often exposes organs at risk (OARs), such as the bone marrow, bowel, rectum, and bladder, to radiation, leading to toxicities that impact treatment tolerance and patient quality of life. Scanning proton beam therapy, particularly with Individual Field Simultaneous Optimization (IFSO), may offer dosimetric and biological advantages over volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). This study evaluates the clinical impact of IFSO-based proton planning in post-operative gynecologic cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients receiving adjuvant proton therapy to 45 Gy in 25 fractions were retrospectively analyzed. Comparison VMAT plans were generated on the same datasets. Dose–volume metrics for key OARs and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) were compared using paired statistical tests. Robustness evaluations accounted for setup and range uncertainties. Results: Proton plans significantly reduced dose to bone marrow (V10Gy: 58% vs. 86%, p < 0.00001; V20Gy: 47% vs. 58%, p < 0.00001), small bowel (V20Gy: 21% vs. 56%, p < 0.00001), and femoral heads (left femoral head mean: 11Gy vs. 13Gy, p = 0.032; right femoral head mean: 11Gy vs. 13Gy, p = 0.022). NTCP modeling predicted significantly lower rates of bowel urgency (9.4% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001) and hematologic toxicity (10.2% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001) with proton therapy. Plans remained robust across uncertainty scenarios. Conclusions: IFSO-based scanning proton therapy provides clinically meaningful sparing of bone marrow and bowel, with the potential to reduce hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities. These findings support its use in patients receiving adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy, particularly those undergoing extended field treatment or chemotherapy.

Purpose: To describe and validate the dose calculation algorithm of an independent second-dose check software for spot scanning proton delivery systems with full width at half maximum between 5 and 14 mm and with a negligible spray component. Methods: The analytical dose engine of our independent second-dose check software employs an altered pencil beam algorithm with 3 lateral Gaussian components. It was commissioned using Geant4 and validated by comparison to point dose measurements at several depths within spread-out Bragg peaks of varying ranges, modulations, and field sizes. Water equivalent distance was used to compensate for inhomogeneous geometry. Twelve patients representing different disease sites were selected for validation. Dose calculation results in water were compared to a fast Monte Carlo code and ionization chamber array measurements using dose planes and dose profiles as well as 2-dimensional–3-dimensional and 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis. Results in patient geometry were compared to Monte Carlo simulation using dose–volume histogram indices, 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis, and inpatient dose profiles. Results: Dose engine model parameters were tuned to achieve 1.5% agreement with measured point doses. The in-water γ-index passing rates for the 12 patients using 3%/2 mm criteria were 99.5% ± 0.5% compared to Monte Carlo. The average inpatient γ-index analysis passing rate compared to Monte Carlo was 95.8% ± 2.9%. The average difference in mean dose to the clinical target volume between the dose engine and Monte Carlo was −0.4% ± 1.0%. For a typical plan, dose calculation time was 2 minutes on an inexpensive workstation. Conclusions: Following our commissioning process, the analytical dose engine was validated for all treatment sites except for the lung or for calculating dose–volume histogram indices involving point doses or critical structures immediately distal to target volumes. Monte Carlo simulations are recommended for these scenarios.