» Articles » PMID: 39477417

Dosimetric Evaluation of Beam-specific PTV and Worst-case Optimization Methods for Liver Proton Therapy

Overview
Journal In Vivo
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Oct 30
PMID 39477417
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background/aim: In spot-scanning proton therapy, intra-fractional anatomical changes by organ movement can lead to deterioration in dose distribution due to beam range variation. To explore a more robust treatment planning method, this study evaluated the dosimetric characteristics and robustness of two proton therapy planning methods for liver cancer.

Patients And Methods: Two- or three-field treatment plans were created for 11 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic liver cancer using a single-field uniform dose (SFUD) technique. The plans were optimized using either beam-specific planning target volume (BSPTV) or worst-case optimization (WCO). The target coverage for the gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), and organs at risk (OAR) parameters related to toxicity were calculated from the perturbed dose distributions, considering setup and range uncertainties. Statistical analyses of the BSPTV and WCO plans were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test (p<0.05). The calculation times for a single optimization process were also recorded and compared.

Results: The robustness of the WCO plans in the worst-case scenario was significantly higher than that of the BSPTV plan in terms of GTV target coverage, prevention of maximum dose increase to the gastrointestinal tract, and the dose received by normal liver regions. However, there were no significant differences in PTV, and the calculation time required to create the WCO plan was considerably longer.

Conclusion: In SFUD proton therapy for liver cancer, the WCO plans required a longer optimization time but exhibited superior robustness in GTV coverage and sparing of OARs.

References
1.
Klein J, Dawson L . Hepatocellular carcinoma radiation therapy: review of evidence and future opportunities. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 87(1):22-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.043. View

2.
Inoue T, Widder J, van Dijk L, Takegawa H, Koizumi M, Takashina M . Limited Impact of Setup and Range Uncertainties, Breathing Motion, and Interplay Effects in Robustly Optimized Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 96(3):661-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2454. View

3.
Li H, Dong L, Bert C, Chang J, Flampouri S, Jee K . AAPM Task Group Report 290: Respiratory motion management for particle therapy. Med Phys. 2022; 49(4):e50-e81. PMC: 9306777. DOI: 10.1002/mp.15470. View

4.
Cheng J, Liu C, Wang Y, Hsu H, Huang E, Huang T . Proton versus photon radiotherapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis. Radiat Oncol. 2020; 15(1):159. PMC: 7325065. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01605-4. View

5.
Lin L, Kang M, Huang S, Mayer R, Thomas A, Solberg T . Beam-specific planning target volumes incorporating 4D CT for pencil beam scanning proton therapy of thoracic tumors. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16(6):5678. PMC: 5691001. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i6.5678. View