Citations

Abstract Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related morality worldwide, and the prognosis remains poor despite aggressive therapy. Carbon ion radiotherapy has favorable radiobiological and physical characteristics in the treatment, including a higher linear energy transfer and higher relative biological effectiveness, which increase the cell kill while potentially reducing toxicities to nearby normal tissues. Although small, early clinical studies have shown promise in both the resectable and unresectable settings to improve local control and overall survival while minimizing toxicities. Currently, there are several trials, including 2 sponsored by institutions in the United States, investigating the role of carbon ion radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

PurposeTo provide a proof of principle of a Pareto‐based method to automatically generate optimal intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for various noncoplanar beam orientations.MethodsA novel multicriteria beam orientation optimization (MCBOO) method was developed to generate Pareto database of optimal plans. The MCBOO method automatically explores the beam orientations and the scalarization parameters of the IMPT plans simultaneously. The MCBOO method is based on multicriteria bilevel optimization (i.e., hierarchical optimization with two nested levels, named the upper and lower level optimization). In MCBOO, the upper level optimization explores the noncoplanar beam orientation space, while the lower level explores the scalarization parameters for a given beam orientation. Differential evolution method was used in both levels, and the Pareto optimal plans were aggregated from the bilevel optimizations to construct the Pareto database. The MCBOO method was implemented on a multinode multi‐GPU cluster, and it was tested on three brain tumor patient cases. The Pareto database of the three patients was generated for a set of DVH‐based objectives. A statistical analysis was performed between a selected set of MCBOO plans and the manual plan (plan with manually selected beam orientation based on the clinical experience and optimized with the same single plan iterative optimizer used in the MCBOO). The selected set of MCBOO plans consisted of plans that matched the performance of the manual plan [i.e., MCBOO plans that have the same target coverage (within 2%) as the manual plan or better and achieved the same dose (within 2%) or lower to all of the organs at risks (OARs) but one OAR]. Additionally, a dosimetric comparison between of one of the selected MCBOO plans vs the manual plan was conducted.ResultsThe multicriteria beam orientation optimization algorithm automatically generated Pareto plans for the three noncoplanar brain tumor cases. The MCBOO plans provided an alternative objective trade‐offs to the manual plan. The selected MCBOO plans showed a reduction in dose to multiple organs at risk vs the manual plan with a maximum value which ranged between 10.8 and 12.9 Gy for the three patients. The trade‐off of the OAR dose reduction resulted in higher dose to no more than one OAR for each of the selected MCBOO plans vs the manual plan. The maximum dose increase in the MCBOO plans over the manual plan ranged from 7.8 to 11.8 Gy.ConclusionsA novel multicriteria beam orientation optimization method was developed and tested on three IMPT patient cases. The method automatically generates Pareto plans database by exploring the noncoplanar beam orientations. The method was able to identify beam orientations with Pareto optimal plans that are comparable to the manually created plans with varying objective trade‐offs.

Treatment planning for protons and heavier ions is adapting technologies originally developed for photon dose optimization, but also has to meet its particular challenges. Since the quality of the applied dose is more sensitive to geometric uncertainties, treatment plan robust optimization has a much more prominent role in particle therapy. This has led to specific planning tools, approaches, and research into new formulations of the robust optimization problems. Tools for solution space navigation and automatic planning are also being adapted to particle therapy. These challenges become even greater when detailed models of relative biological effectiveness ( RBE ) are included into dose optimization, as is required for heavier ions.

PurposeProvide an adaptive multicriteria optimization (MCO) method for intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) utilizing GPU technology. Previously described limitations of MCO such as Pareto approximation and limitation on the number of objectives were addressed.MethodsThe treatment planning process for IMPT must account for multiple objectives, which requires extensive treatment planning resources. Often a large number of objectives (>10) are required. Hence the need for an MCO algorithm that can handle large number of objectives. The novelty of the MCO method presented here lies on the introduction of the adaptive weighting scheme that can generate a well‐distributed and dense representation of the Pareto surface for a large number of objectives in an efficient manner. In our approach the generated Pareto surface is constructed for a set of DVH objectives. The MCO algorithm is based on the augmented weighted Chebychev metric (AWCM) method with an adaptive weighting scheme. This scheme uses the differential evolution (DE) method to generate a set of well‐distributed Pareto points. The quality of the Pareto points’ distribution in the objective space was assessed quantitatively using the Pareto sampling metric. The MCO algorithm was developed to perform multiple parallel searches to achieve a rapid mapping of the Pareto surface, produce clinically deliverable plans, and was implemented on a GPU cluster. The MCO algorithm was tested on two clinical cases with 10 and 18 objectives. For each case one of the MCO‐generated plans was selected for comparison with the clinically generated plan. The MCO plan was randomly selected out of the set of MCO plans that had target coverage similar to the clinically generated plan and the same or better sparing of the organs at risk (OAR). Additionally, a validation study of the AWCM method vs the weighted sum method was performed.ResultsThe adaptive MCO algorithm generated Pareto points on the Pareto hypersurface in a fast (2–3 hr) and efficient manner for 2 cases with 10 and 18 objectives. The MCO algorithm generated a dense and well‐distributed set of Pareto points on the objective space, and was able to achieve minimization of the Pareto sampling metric. The selected MCO plan showed an improvement of the DVH objectives in comparison to the clinically optimized plan in both cases. For case one, the MCO plan showed a 48% reduction of the 50% dose to OARs and a 16% reduction of the 1% dose to OARs. For case 2, the MCO plan showed a 72% reduction of the 50% dose to OARs and a 42% reduction of the 1% dose to OARs. The comparison of AWCM to WS showed that the AWCM method has a dosimetric advantage over WS for both patient cases.ConclusionWe introduced an adaptive MCO algorithm for IMPT accelerated using GPUs. The algorithm is based on an adaptive method for generating Pareto plans in the objective space. We have shown that the algorithm can provide rapid and efficient mapping of the multicriteria Pareto surface with clinically deliverable plans.

PurposeThe presence of respiratory motion during radiation treatment leads to degradation of the expected dose distribution, both for target coverage and healthy tissue sparing, particularly for techniques like pencil beam scanning proton therapy which have dynamic delivery systems. While tools exist to estimate this degraded four‐dimensional (4D) dose, they typically have one or more deficiencies such as not including the particular effects from a dynamic delivery, using analytical dose calculations, and/or using nonphysical dose‐accumulation methods. This work presents a clinically useful 4D‐dose calculator that addresses each of these shortcomings.MethodsTo quickly compute the 4D dose, the three main tasks of the calculator were run on graphics processing units (GPUs). These tasks were (a) simulating the delivery of the plan using measured delivery parameters to distribute the plan amongst 4DCT phases characterizing the patient breathing, (b) using an in‐house Monte Carlo simulation (MC) dose calculator to determine the dose delivered to each breathing phase, and (c) accumulating the doses from the various breathing phases onto a single phase for evaluation. The accumulation was performed by individually transferring the energy and mass of dose‐grid subvoxels, a technique that models the transfer of dose in a more physically realistic manner. The calculator was run on three test cases, with lung, esophagus, and liver targets, respectively, to assess the various uncertainties in the beam delivery simulation as well as to characterize the dose‐accumulation technique.ResultsFour‐dimensional doses were successfully computed for the three test cases with computation times ranging from 4–6 min on a server with eight NVIDIA Titan X graphics cards; the most time‐consuming component was the MC dose engine. The subvoxel‐based dose‐accumulation technique produced stable 4D‐dose distributions at subvoxel scales of 0.5–1.0 mm without impairing the total computation time. The uncertainties in the beam delivery simulation led to moderate variations of the dose–volume histograms for these cases; the variations were reduced by implementing repainting or phase‐gating motion mitigation techniques in the calculator.ConclusionsA MC‐based and GPU‐accelerated 4D‐dose calculator was developed to estimate the effects of respiratory motion on pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments. After future validation, the calculator could be used to assess treatment plans and its quick runtime would make it easily usable in a future 4D‐robust optimization system.

PurposeAccuracy of dose calculation models and robustness under various uncertainties are key factors influencing the quality of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. To mitigate the effects of uncertainties and to improve the dose calculation accuracy, an all‐scenario robust IMPT optimization based on accurate Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation was developed.MethodsIn the all‐scenario robust IMPT optimization, dose volume histograms (DVHs) were computed for the nominal case and for each uncertainty scenario. All scenarios were weighted by DVH values dynamically throughout optimization iterations. In contrast, probabilistic approach weighted scenarios with fixed scenario weights and worst case optimizations picked one single scenario — the worst scenario for each iteration. Uncertainties in patient setup and proton range were considered in all clinical cases studied. Graphics processing unit (GPU) computation was employed to reduce the computational time in both the MC dose calculation and optimization stages. A previously published adaptive quasi‐Newton method for proton optimization was extended to include robustness. To validate the all‐scenario algorithm extension, it was compared with the single scenario optimization target volume (OTV) based approach in clinical cases of three different disease sites. Additional comparisons with worst case optimization methods were conducted to evaluate the performance of the all‐scenario robust optimization against other robust optimizations.ResultsThe all‐scenario robust IMPT optimization spared organs at risk (OARs) better than the OTV‐based method while maintaining target coverage and improving the robustness of targets and OARs. Compared with composite and voxel‐wise worst case optimization, the all‐scenario robust optimization converged faster, and arrived at solutions of tighter DVH robustness spread, better target coverage and lower OAR dose.ConclusionAn all‐scenario robust IMPT treatment planning system was developed using an adaptive quasi‐Newton optimization method. The optimization system was GPU‐accelerated and based on MC dose calculation. Improved performance was observed in clinical cases when compared with worst case optimization methods.

Abstract Background and study aims Little consideration has been given to selection of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fiducials for proton radiotherapy and the resulting perturbations in the therapy dose and pattern. Our aim was to assess the impact of perturbations caused by six fiducials of different composition and dimensions in a phantom gel model. Materials and methods The phantom was submerged in a water bath and irradiated with a uniform 10 cm × 10 cm field of 119.7 MeV monoenergetic spot scanning protons delivered through a 45 mm range shifter. The proton “Bragg Peak” was evaluated. Results Dose perturbations manifesting as dose reductions up to 30 % were observed. A carbon composite (1 × 5 mm) and gold (0.4 × 10 mm) fiducial with backload potential rather than dedicated EUS pre-loaded gold fiducial needles had the best performance in terms of minimizing the dose perturbation. Conclusions Our data demonstrate that a carbon composite fiducial has a less untoward effect on proton therapy dose distribution than dedicated EUS pre-loaded gold fiducial needles. Such information is important to consider when selecting fiducials specifically for proton therapy.

With robust optimization for spot scanning proton therapy now commercially available, the ability exists to account for setup, range, and interfield uncertainties during optimization. Robust optimization is particularly beneficial for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) where the large target volume lends itself to larger setup uncertainties and the need for robust match lines can all be handled with the uncertainty parameters found inside the optimizer. Suggested robust optimization settings, parameters, and image guidance for CSI patients using proton therapy spot scanning are provided. Useful structures are defined and described. Suggestions are given for perturbations to be entered into the optimizer in order to achieve a plan that provides robust target volume coverage and critical structure sparing as well as a robust match line. Interfield offset effects, a concern when using multifield optimization, can also be addressed within the robust optimizer. A robust optimizer can successfully be employed to produce robust match lines, target volume coverage, and critical structure sparing under specified uncertainties. The robust optimizer can also be used to reduce effects arising from interfield uncertainties. Using robust optimization, a plan robust against setup, range, and interfield uncertainties for craniospinal treatments can be created. Utilizing robust optimization allows one to ensure critical structures are spared and target volumes are covered under the desired uncertainty parameters.