Shan, Jie

AbstractPurposePatient‐Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) measurement analysis depends on generating metrics representative of calculation and measurement agreement. Considering the heightened capability of discrete spot scanning protons to modulate individual dose voxels, a dose plane comparison approach that maintained all of the capabilities of the well‐established γ test, but that also provided a more intuitive error parameterization, was desired.MethodsAnalysis was performed for 300 dose planes compared by searching all calculated points within a fixed radius around each measured pixel to determine the dose deviation. Dose plane agreement is reported as the dose difference minimum (DDM) within an empirically established search radius: ΔDmin(r). This per‐pixel metric is aggregated into a histogram binned by dose deviation. Search‐radius criteria were based on a weighted‐beamlet 3σ spatial deviation from imaging isocenter. Equipment setup error was mitigated during analysis using tracked image registration, ensuring beamlet deviations to be the dominant source of spatial error. The percentage of comparison points with <3% dose difference determined pass rate.ResultsThe mean beamlet radial deviation was 0.38mm from x‐ray isocenter, with a standard deviation of 0.19mm, such that 99.9% of relevant pencil beams were within 1 mm of nominal. The dose‐plane comparison data showed no change in passing rate between a 3%/1mm ΔDmin(r) analysis (97.6 +/‐ 3.6%) and a 3%/2mm γ test (97.7 +/‐ 3.2%).ConclusionsPSQA dose‐comparison agreements corresponding to a search radius outside of machine performance limits are likely false positives. However, the elliptical shape of the γ test is too dose‐restrictive with a spatial‐error threshold set at 1 mm. This work introduces a cylindrical search shape, proposed herein as more relevant to plan quality, as part of the new DDM planar‐dose comparison algorithm. DDM accepts all pixels within a given dose threshold inside the search radius, and carries forward plan‐quality metrics in a straightforward manner for evaluation.

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.

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.