Gelover, Edgar

AbstractPurposeThe aim of this work is to describe the clinical implementation of respiratory‐gated spot‐scanning proton therapy (SSPT) for the treatment of thoracic and abdominal moving targets. The experience of our institution is summarized, from initial acceptance and commissioning tests to the development of standard clinical operating procedures for simulation, motion assessment, motion mitigation, treatment planning, and gated SSPT treatment delivery.Materials and methodsA custom respiratory gating interface incorporating the Real‐Time Position Management System (RPM, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was developed in‐house for our synchrotron‐based delivery system. To assess gating performance, a motion phantom and radiochromic films were used to compare gated vs nongated delivery. Site‐specific treatment planning protocols and conservative motion cutoffs were developed, allowing for free‐breathing (FB), breath‐holding (BH), or phase‐gating (Ph‐G). Room usage efficiency of BH and Ph‐G treatments was retrospectively evaluated using beam delivery data retrieved from our record and verify system and DICOM files from patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) procedures.ResultsMore than 70 patients were treated using active motion management between the launch of our motion mitigation program in October 2015 and the end date of data collection of this study in January 2018. During acceptance procedures, we found that overall system latency is clinically‐suitable for Ph‐G. Regarding room usage efficiency, the average number of energy layers delivered per minute was <10 for Ph‐G, 10‐15 for BH and ≥15 for FB, making Ph‐G the slowest treatment modality. When comparing to continuous delivery measured during pretreatment QA procedures, the median values of BH treatment time were extended from 6.6 to 9.3 min (+48%). Ph‐G treatments were extended from 7.3 to 13.0 min (+82%).ConclusionsActive motion management has been crucial to the overall success of our SSPT program. Nevertheless, our conservative approach has come with an efficiency cost that is more noticeable in Ph‐G treatments and should be considered in decision‐making.

AbstractThe objective of this study was to assess the recommended DVH parameter (e.g., D2 cc) addition method used for combining EBRT and HDR plans, against a reference dataset generated from an EQD2‐based DVH addition method. A revised DVH parameter addition method using EBRT DVH parameters derived from each patient's plan was proposed and also compared with the reference dataset. Thirty‐one biopsy‐proven cervical cancer patients who received EBRT and HDR brachytherapy were retrospectively analyzed. A parametrial and/or paraaortic EBRT boost were clinically performed on 13 patients. Ten IMRT and 21 3DCRT plans were determined. Two different HDR techniques for each HDR plan were analyzed. Overall D2 cc and D0.1 cc OAR doses in EQD2 were statistically analyzed for three different DVH parameter addition methods: a currently recommended method, a proposed revised method, and a reference DVH addition method. The overall D2 ccEQD2 values for all rectum, bladder, and sigmoid for a conformal, volume optimization HDR plan generated using the current DVH parameter addition method were significantly underestimated on average −5 to −8% when compared to the values obtained from the reference DVH addition technique (P < 0.01). The revised DVH parameter addition method did not present statistical differences with the reference technique (P > 0.099). When PM boosts were considered, there was an even greater average underestimation of −8~−10% for overall OAR doses of conformal HDR plans when using the current DVH parameter addition technique as compared to the revised DVH parameter addition. No statistically significant differences were found between the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques (P > 0.3148). It is recommended that the overall D2 cc EBRT doses are obtained from each patient's EBRT plan.