A single-field integrated boost treatment planning technique for spot scanning proton therapy

Xiaorong Ronald Zhu, Falk Poenisch, Heng Li, Xiaodong Zhang, Narayan Sahoo, Richard Y. Wu, Xiaoqiang Li, Andrew K. Lee, Eric L. Chang, Seungtaek Choi, Thomas Pugh, Steven J. Frank, Michael T. Gillin, Anita Mahajan, David R. Grosshans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans are normally generated utilizing multiple field optimization (MFO) techniques. Similar to photon based IMRT, MFO allows for the utilization of a simultaneous integrated boost in which multiple target volumes are treated to discrete doses simultaneously, potentially improving plan quality and streamlining quality assurance and treatment delivery. However, MFO may render plans more sensitive to the physical uncertainties inherent to particle therapy. Here we present clinical examples of a single-field integrated boost (SFIB) technique for spot scanning proton therapy based on single field optimization (SFO) treatment-planning techniques.Methods and materials: We designed plans of each type for illustrative patients with central nervous system (brain and spine), prostate and head and neck malignancies. SFIB and IMPT plans were constructed to deliver multiple prescription dose levels to multiple targets using SFO or MFO, respectively. Dose and fractionation schemes were based on the current clinical practice using X-ray IMRT in our clinic. For inverse planning, dose constraints were employed to achieve the desired target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Conformality and inhomogeneity indices were calculated to quantify plan quality. We also compared the worst-case robustness of the SFIB, sequential boost SFUD, and IMPT plans.Results: The SFIB technique produced more conformal dose distributions than plans generated by sequential boost using a SFUD technique (conformality index for prescription isodose levels; 0.585 ± 0.30 vs. 0.435 ± 0.24, SFIB vs. SFUD respectively, Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test, p < 0.01). There was no difference in the conformality index between SFIB and IMPT plans (0.638 ± 0.27 vs. 0.633 ± 0.26, SFIB vs. IMPT, respectively). Heterogeneity between techniques was not significantly different. With respect to clinical metrics, SFIB plans proved more robust than the corresponding IMPT plans.Conclusions: SFIB technique for scanning beam proton therapy (SSPT) is now routinely employed in our clinic. The SFIB technique is a natural application of SFO and offers several advantages over SFUD, including more conformal plans, seamless treatment delivery and more efficient planning and QA. SFIB may be more robust than IMPT and has been the treatment planning technique of choice for some patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number202
JournalRadiation Oncology
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 11 2014
Externally publishedYes

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Proton therapy
  • SFIB
  • Single field integrated boost
  • Single-field optimization
  • Spot scanning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Zhu, X. R., Poenisch, F., Li, H., Zhang, X., Sahoo, N., Wu, R. Y., Li, X., Lee, A. K., Chang, E. L., Choi, S., Pugh, T., Frank, S. J., Gillin, M. T., Mahajan, A., & Grosshans, D. R. (2014). A single-field integrated boost treatment planning technique for spot scanning proton therapy. Radiation Oncology, 9(1), [202]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-202