Is there a single spot size and grid for intensity modulated proton therapy? Simulation of head and neck, prostate and mesothelioma cases.

PURPOSE To assess the quality of dose distributions in real clinical cases for different dimensions of scanned proton pencil beams. The distance between spots (i.e., the grid of delivery) is optimized for each dimension of the pencil beam. METHODS The authors vary the σ of the initial Gaussian size of the spot, from σ(x) = σ(y) = 3 mm to σ(x) = σ(y) = 8 mm, to evaluate the impact of the proton beam size on the quality of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. The distance between spots, Δx and Δy, is optimized on the spot plane, ranging from 4 to 12 mm (i.e., each spot size is coupled with the best spot grid resolution). In our Hyperion treatment planning system (TPS), constrained optimization is applied with respect to the organs at risk (OARs), i.e., the optimization tries to satisfy the dose objectives in the planning target volume (PTV) as long as all planning objectives for the OARs are met. Three-field plans for a nasopharynx case, two-field plans for a prostate case, and two-field plans for a malignant pleural mesothelioma case are considered in our analysis. RESULTS For the head and neck tumor, the best grids (i.e., distance between spots) are 5, 4, 6, 6, and 8 mm for σ = 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 mm, respectively. σ ≤ 5 mm is required for tumor volumes with low dose and σ ≤ 4 mm for tumor volumes with high dose. For the prostate patient, the best grid is 4, 4, 5, 5, and 5 mm for σ = 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 mm, respectively. Beams with σ > 3 mm did not satisfy our first clinical requirement that 95% of the prescribed dose is delivered to more than 95% of prostate and proximal seminal vesicles PTV. Our second clinical requirement, to cover the distal seminal vesicles PTV, is satisfied for beams as wide as σ = 6 mm. For the mesothelioma case, the low dose PTV prescription is well respected for all values of σ, while there is loss of high dose PTV coverage for σ > 5 mm. The best grids have a spacing of 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 mm for σ = 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The maximum acceptable proton pencil beam σ depends on the volume treated, the protocol of delivery, and optimization of the plan. For the clinical cases, protocol and optimization used in this analysis, acceptable σs are ≤ 4 mm for the head and neck tumor, ≤ 3 mm for the prostate tumor and ≤ 6 mm for the malignant pleural mesothelioma. One can apply the same procedure used in this analysis when given a "class" of patients, a σ and a clinical protocol to determine the optimal grid spacing.

[1]  Riccardo Calandrino,et al.  Helical tomotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: a treatment planning comparison. , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[2]  Ke Sheng,et al.  Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: plan quality, delivery efficiency and accuracy. , 2010, Medical physics.

[3]  L. Cozzi,et al.  Boosting the tumor bed from deep-seated tumors in early-stage breast cancer: a planning study between electron, photon, and proton beams. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[4]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  Using a reduced spot size for intensity-modulated proton therapy potentially improves salivary gland-sparing in oropharyngeal cancer. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  Riccardo Calandrino,et al.  Intensity-modulated proton therapy versus helical tomotherapy in nasopharynx cancer: planning comparison and NTCP evaluation. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  Daniela Thorwarth,et al.  Dose painting with IMPT, helical tomotherapy and IMXT: a dosimetric comparison. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[7]  C. Bäumer,et al.  Lateral dose profile characterization in scanning particle therapy. , 2011, Medical physics.

[8]  E. Pedroni,et al.  Dose calculation models for proton treatment planning using a dynamic beam delivery system: an attempt to include density heterogeneity effects in the analytical dose calculation. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  A J Lomax,et al.  Experimental verification of IMPT treatment plans in an anthropomorphic phantom in the presence of delivery uncertainties , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Thomas Bortfeld,et al.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning. , 2008, Medical physics.

[11]  Ludwig Bogner,et al.  Uncertainty reduction in intensity modulated proton therapy by inverse Monte Carlo treatment planning , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  F. Fazio,et al.  Phase I-II study of hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost with tomotherapy for prostate cancer. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  K Parodi,et al.  The influence of lateral beam profile modifications in scanned proton and carbon ion therapy: a Monte Carlo study , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  E Pedroni,et al.  Experimental characterization and physical modelling of the dose distribution of scanned proton pencil beams , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Cedric X. Yu,et al.  Helical tomotherapy versus single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy: a collaborative dosimetric comparison between two institutions. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Uwe Schneider,et al.  Intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors. , 2006, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  A. Lomax,et al.  Helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated proton therapy for whole pelvis irradiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients: dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability, and generalized equivalent uniform dose analysis. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  A Fogliata,et al.  A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumours. , 2001, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[19]  A. Lomax,et al.  Proton therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  Alexei Trofimov,et al.  Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Martin Soukup,et al.  Influence of dose engine accuracy on the optimum dose distribution in intensity-modulated proton therapy treatment plans , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  Alessandra Bolsi,et al.  Treatment planning and verification of proton therapy using spot scanning: initial experiences. , 2004, Medical physics.

[23]  Matthias Fippel,et al.  A pencil beam algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy derived from Monte Carlo simulations , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Hanne M Kooy,et al.  A case study in proton pencil-beam scanning delivery. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.