Citations

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.

AbstractBackgroundDeep learning auto‐segmentation (DLAS) models have been adopted in the clinic; however, they suffer from performance deterioration owing to the clinical practice variability. Some commercial DLAS software provide an incremental retraining function that enables users to train a custom model using their institutional data to account for clinical practice variability.PurposeThis study was performed to evaluate and implement the commercial DLAS software with the incremental retraining function for definitive treatment of patients with prostate cancer in a multi‐user environment.MethodsCT‐based target organs and organs‐at‐risk (OAR) delineation of 215 prostate cancer patients were utilized. The performance of three commercial DLAS software built‐in models was validated with 20 patients. A retrained custom model was developed using 100 patients and evaluated on the remaining data (n = 115). Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), mean surface distance (MSD), and surface DSC (SDSC) were utilized for quantitative evaluation. A multi‐rater qualitative evaluation was blindly performed with a five‐level scale. Visual inspection was performed in consensus and non‐consensus unacceptable cases to identify the failure modes.ResultsThree commercial DLAS vendor built‐in models achieved sub‐optimal performance in 20 patients. The retrained custom model had a mean DSC of 0.82 for prostate, 0.48 for seminal vesicles (SV), and 0.92 for rectum, respectively. This represents a significant improvement over the built‐in model with DSC of 0.73, 0.37, and 0.81 for the corresponding structures. Compared to the acceptance rate of 96.5% and consensus unacceptable rate (i.e., both reviewers rated as unacceptable) of 3.5% achieved by manual contours, the custom model achieved a 91.3% acceptance rate and 8.7% consensus unacceptable rate. The failure modes of retrained custom model were attributed to the following: cystogram (n = 2), hip prosthesis (n = 2), low dose rate brachytherapy seeds (n = 2), air in endorectal balloon(n = 1), non‐iodinated spacer (n = 2), and giant bladder(n = 1).ConclusionThe commercial DLAS software with the incremental retraining function was validated and clinically adopted for prostate patients in a multi‐user environment. AI‐based auto‐delineation of the prostate and OARs is shown to achieve improved physician acceptance, overall clinical utility, and accuracy.

Purpose Identifying actionable oncogenic mutations have changed the therapeutic landscape in different types of tumors. This study investigated the utility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP), a hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay, in clinical practice in a developing country. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, CGP was performed on clinical samples from patients with different solid tumors recruited between December 2016 and November 2020, using hybrid capture-based genomic profiling, at the individual treating physicians’ request in the clinical care for therapy decisions. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were estimated to characterize the time-to-event variables. Results Patients median age was 61 years (range: 14–87 years), and 64.7% were female. The most common histological diagnosis was lung primary tumors, with 90 patients corresponding to 52.9% of the samples (95% CI 45.4-60.4%). Actionable mutations with FDA-approved medications for specific alterations correspondent to tumoral histology were identified in 58 cases (46.4%), whereas other alterations were detected in 47 different samples (37.6%). The median overall survival was 15.5 months (95% CI 11.7 months-NR). Patients who were subjected to genomic evaluation at diagnosis reached a median overall survival of 18.3 months (95% CI 14.9 months-NR) compared to 14.1 months (95% CI 11.1 months-NR) in patients who obtained genomic evaluation after tumor progression and during standard treatment ( P = .7). Conclusion CGP of different types of tumors identifies clinically relevant genomic alterations that have benefited from targeted therapy and improve cancer care in a developing country to guide personalized treatment to beneficial outcomes of cancer patients.

AbstractBackgroundData for proton therapy in high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPC) are limited. Using the Proton Collaborative Group prospective registry, we evaluated outcomes for HRPC patients treated with proton therapy.MethodsA totsl of 605 men with localized HRPC treated with proton therapy from 8/2009 to 3/2019 at nine institutions were selected. Outcomes examined included freedom from progression (FFP), metastasis free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Multivariable cox/binomial regression models were used to assess predictors of FFP and toxicity.ResultsMedian age was 71 years. Gleason grade groups 4 (49.4%) and 5 (31.7%) were most common, as were clinical stage T1c (46.1%) and cT2 (41.3%). The median pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.18 and median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 6. Androgen deprivation therapy was given in 63.6%. Median dose was 79.2 GyE in 44 fractions. Pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 58.2% of cases. Pencil beam scanning was used in 54.5%, uniform scanning in 38.8%, and a rectal spacer in 14.2%. At a median followup of 22 months, the 3‐ and 5‐year FFP were 90.7% and 81.4%, respectively. Five‐year MFS and OS were 92.8% and 95.9%, respectively. Independent correlates of FFP included Gleason ≥8, PSA > 10, and cT2 (all p < 0.05). No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. There were 23 (5%) grade 2 and 0 grade 3 gastrointestinal events. Prevalence of late grade 3, late grade 2, acute grade 3, and acute grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 1.7%, 5.8%, 0%, and 21.8%, respectively. Prevalence of grade 2 and 3 erectile dysfunction at 2 years was 48.4% and 8.4%, respectively.ConclusionsIn the largest series published to date, our results suggest early outcomes using proton therapy for HRPC are encouraging for both safety and efficacy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if an advantage exists to use protons over other radiation techniques in this population.

Abstract Purpose/Objectives: Proton therapy is under investigation in breast cancer as a strategy to reduce heart and lung exposure, which is associated with late cardiopulmonary adverse events and secondary malignancy. To date, studies investigating postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) with protons have used conventional fractionation. We hypothesized that condensing treatment to 15 fractions would be safe based on evidence that breast cancer is more sensitive to higher dose fractions than surrounding normal tissues. Materials/Methods: We conducted a randomized non-inferiority phase II trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated proton PMRT with primary endpoint of 24-month complication rate (defined as grade 3 or higher late adverse events using CTCAE, v 4.0 and/or unplanned surgical intervention in patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction). With a 10% non-inferiority margin the study ensured 80% power and had a one sided-type I error rate of 0.05. Cardiotoxicity was assessed with serial transthoracic conventional and 2-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE). Eligibility included age ≥ 18 years with non-inflammatory breast cancer resected by mastectomy with indications for PMRT. Assignment of treatments was balanced with respect to immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Conventional fractionation group received 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy, and hypofractionation group received 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy (RBE 1.1). Target volume included the chest wall and axillary, supraclavicular, and internal mammary lymph nodes. All patients were treated with multi-field optimized pencil beam scanning (intensity modulated proton therapy). Results: Between 2016 and 2018, 82 patients were enrolled and randomized (41 conventional, 41 hypofractionation). Median patient age was 52 years. 32.9% were staged T3-T4 and 79.3% node positive at diagnosis. 57 of 82 patients (69.5%) elected IBR. The median mean heart dose was 0.49 Gy and the median ipsilateral lung volume receiving 40% of prescription or greater (V40%) was 13.6%. No significant changes on conventional or 2D-STE at end-of-treatment or 3-month follow-up compared to baseline were observed. The rate of ≥ grade 2 acute dermatitis was lower with hypofractionation (44% vs 15%, p = 0.006). Other ≥ grade 2 acute adverse events including esophagitis (0 vs 5%), infection (5% vs 2.4%) and skin hyperpigmentation (7.3% vs 4.8%) were not significantly different between the two arms. With a median follow-up of 38.3 months, the 24-month complication rate was conventional 14.6% vs hypofractionation 17.1% (absolute difference 2.4%, p=0.17, 95% CI [-, 15.7%]). In patients with IBR, 6 of 28 (21.4%) conventional and 7 of 29 (24.1%) hypofractionated patients developed complications (p =0.80). There was no significant difference in 3-year disease-free survival between the conventional (89.4%; 95% CI 80.0 – 99.8%) and hypofractionated (92.4%, 95% CI 84.5 – 100.0%) arms (p = 0.91). One local recurrence occurred in the hypofractionated arm simultaneous with regional and distant relapse. The remaining 6 recurrences were isolated distant events. Conclusions: Proton PMRT provided excellent locoregional control and normal tissue sparing. There were no subclinical echocardiographic changes indicative of radiation-induced cardiac dysfunction. Hypofractionation resulted in comparable disease control, tolerability and reconstruction outcomes as conventional fractionation. Although non-inferiority of hypofractionation could not be established based on the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for complication rate being greater than 10%, both conventional and hypofractionation may be considered appropriate regimens for ongoing phase 3 randomized trials comparing photon and proton radiotherapy. Citation Format: Robert Mutter, Sharmila Giri, Briant Fruth, Nicholas Remmes, Aman Anand, Kathryn Ruddy, Hector Villarraga, Sebastian Santos Patarroyo, Elizabeth Yan, Kenneth Merrell, Lisa McGee, Tamara Vern-Gross, Bradley Stish, Robert Gao, Judy C. Boughey, Sean Park, Kimberly Corbin, Carlos Vargas. Phase II randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated post-mastectomy proton radiotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-05.

Purpose: Planning target volume (PTV) expansion for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy is typically ≥5 mm. Recent clinical trials have proved the feasibility of a reduced margin of 2–3 mm for treatments on MRI-linac. We aim to study the minimum PTV margin needed using iterative cone-beam CT (iCBCT) as image guidance on conventional linacs. Materials/Methods: Fourteen patients who received post-prostatectomy irradiation (8 with an endorectal balloon and 6 without a balloon) were included in this study. Treatment was delivered with volumetric modulated radiation therapy (VMAT). Fractional dose delivery was evaluated in 165 treatment fractions. The bladder, rectal wall, femoral heads, and prostate bed clinical tumor volume (CTV) were contoured and verified on daily iCBCT. PTV margins (0 mm, 2 mm, and 4 mm) were evaluated on daily iCBCT. CTV coverage and OAR dose parameters were assessed with each PTV margin. Results: CTV D100% was underdosed with a 0 mm margin in 32% of fractions in comparison with 2 mm (6%) and 4 mm (6%) PTV margin (p ≤ 0.001). CTV D95% > 95% was met in 93–94% fractions for all PTV expansions. CTV D95% > 95% was achieved in more patients with an endorectal balloon than those without: 0 mm—90/91 (99%) vs. 63/74 (85%); 2 mm—90/91 (99%) vs. 65/75 (87%); 4 mm—90/90 (100%) vs. 63/73 (86%). There was no difference in absolute median change in CTV D95% (0.32%) for 0-, 2-, and 4 mm margins. The maximum dose remained under 108% for 100% (0 mm), 97% (2 mm), and 98% (4 mm) of images. Rectal wall maximum dose remained under 108% for 100% (0 mm), 100% (2 mm), and 98% (4 mm) of images. Conclusions: With high-quality iCBCT image guidance, PTV margin accounting for inter-fractional uncertainties can be safely reduced for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. For fractionated radiotherapy, an isotropic expansion of 2 mm and 4 mm may be considered for margin expansion with and without the endorectal balloon. Future application for margin reduction needs to be further evaluated and considered with the advent of shorter post-prostatectomy radiation courses.

Purpose: Post-operative prostate cancer patients are treated with full bladder instruction and the use of an endorectal balloon (ERB). We reassessed the efficacy of this practice based on daily image guidance and dose delivery using high-quality iterative reconstructed cone-beam CT (iCBCT). Methods: Fractional dose delivery was calculated on daily iCBCT for 314 fractions from 14 post-operative prostate patients (8 with and 6 without ERB) treated with volumetric modulated radiotherapy (VMAT). All patients were positioned using novel iCBCT during image guidance. The bladder, rectal wall, femoral heads, and prostate bed clinical tumor volume (CTV) were contoured and verified on daily iCBCT. The dose-volume parameters of the contoured organs at risk (OAR) and CTV coverage were assessed for the clinical impact of daily bladder volume variations and the use of ERB. Minimum bladder volume was studied, and a straightforward bladder instruction was explored for easy clinical adoption. Results: A “minimum bladder” contour, the overlap between the original bladder contour and a 15 mm anterior and superior expansion from prostate bed PTV, was confirmed to be effective in identifying cases that might fail a bladder constraint of V65% <60%. The average difference between the maximum and minimum bladder volumes for each patient was 277.1 mL. The daily bladder volumes varied from 62.4 to 590.7 mL and ranged from 29 to 286% of the corresponding planning bladder volume. The bladder constraint of V65% <60% was met in almost all fractions (98%). CTVs (D90%, D95%, and D98%) remained well-covered regardless of the absolute bladder volume daily variation or the presence of the endorectal balloon. Patients with an endorectal balloon showed smaller variation but a higher average maximum rectal wall dose (D0.03mL: 104.3% of the prescription) compared to patients without (103.3%). Conclusions: A “minimum bladder” contour was determined that can be easily generated and followed to ensure sufficient bladder sparing. Further analysis and validation are needed to confirm the utility of the minimal bladder contour. Accurate dose delivery can be achieved for prostate bed target coverage and OAR sparing with or without the use of ERB.

AbstractBackgroundParallel‐opposed lateral beams are the conventional beam arrangements in proton therapy for prostate cancer. However, when considering linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE effects, alternative beam arrangements should be investigated.PurposeTo investigate the dose and dose averaged LET (LETd) impact of using new beam arrangements rotating beams 5°–15° posteriorly to the laterals in prostate cancer treated with pencil‐beam‐scanning (PBS) proton therapy.MethodsTwenty patients with localized prostate cancer were included in this study. Four proton treatment plans for each patient were generated utilizing 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° posterior oblique beam pairs relative to parallel‐opposed lateral beams. Dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) from posterior oblique beams were analyzed. Dose‐LETd‐volume histogram (DLVH) was employed to study the difference in dose and LETd with each beam arrangement. DLVH indices, , defined as the cumulative absolute volume that has a dose of at least d (Gy[RBE]) and a LETd of at least l (keV/µm), were calculated for both the rectum and bladder to the whole group of patients and two‐sub groups with and without hydrogel spacer. These metrics were tested using Wilcoxon signed‐rank test.ResultsRotating beam angles from laterals to slightly posterior by 5°–15° reduced high LETd volumes while it increased the dose volume in the rectum and increased LETd in bladders. Beam angles rotated five degrees posteriorly from laterals (i.e., gantry in 95° and 265°) are proposed since they achieved the optimal balance of better LETd sparing and minimal dose increase in the rectum. A reduction of V(50 Gy[RBE], 2.6 keV/µm) from 7.41 to 3.96 cc (p < 0.01), and a slight increase of V(50 Gy[RBE], 0 keV/µm) from 20.1 to 21.6 cc (p < 0.01) were observed for the group without hydrogel spacer. The LETd sparing was less effective for the group with hydrogel spacer, which achieved the reduction of V(50 Gy[RBE], 2.6 keV/µm) from 4.28 to 2.10 cc (p < 0.01).ConclusionsPosterior oblique angle plans improved LETd sparing of the rectum while sacrificing LETd sparing in the bladder in the treatment of prostate cancer with PBS. Beam angle modification from laterals to slightly posterior may be a strategy to redistribute LETd and perhaps reduce rectal toxicity risks in prostate cancer patients treated with PBS. However, the effect is reduced for patients with hydrogel spacer.