Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility

Maura L. Kirk, Shikui Tang, Huifang Zhai, Neha Vapiwala, Curtiland Deville, Paul James, Justin E. Bekelman, John P. Christodouleas, Zelig Tochner, Stefan Both

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: This study compares target coverage robustness among proton therapy plans for prostate cancer patients treated with 2 laterally opposed fields delivered daily or, alternatively, every other day as single lateral fields, using uniform scanning (US), single-field uniform dose (SFUD), pencil beam scanning (PBS) optimized for uniform target coverage only, SFUD PBS optimized for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing (SFUD-opt), and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods and materials: Ten prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy underwent weekly verification computed tomographic (CT) scans. US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT treatment plans were created and recalculated on weekly verification scans evaluating 2-field daily and single-field target coverage and OAR constraints. Results: The average (±. standard deviation) planning target volume conformity index for US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT clinical plans was 0.53 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.05, 0.78 ± 0.04, and 0.78 ± 0.03, respectively. The average 2-field internal target volume (ITV) coverage was significantly higher for both US and SFUD when individually compared with SFUD-opt and IMPT. There was no significant difference between US and SFUD ITV coverage when comparing 2-field daily versus single-field daily delivery. The average single-field coverage was greatest using US and SFUD with 99% of the ITV being covered by 96.8% ± 0.9% and 96.7% ± 1.3%, respectively, compared with 95.5% ± 0.7% for SFUD-opt. There were no significant differences among the 4 plans regarding OAR dose constraints assessed. Conclusions: Pencil beam scanning techniques are more conformal than US and, when optimized only for uniform target coverage from each field, can be equally as robust relative to anatomic interfraction variations for prostate cancer patients treated with a single field per day technique. The SFUD-opt and IMPT involve highly modulated pencil beam spots and may be less robust to daily interfraction anatomic variations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-105
Number of pages7
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Planning Techniques
Proton Therapy
Protons
Prostate
Organs at Risk
Anatomic Variation
Prostatic Neoplasms
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility. / Kirk, Maura L.; Tang, Shikui; Zhai, Huifang; Vapiwala, Neha; Deville, Curtiland; James, Paul; Bekelman, Justin E.; Christodouleas, John P.; Tochner, Zelig; Both, Stefan.

In: Practical Radiation Oncology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 01.03.2015, p. 99-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kirk, Maura L. ; Tang, Shikui ; Zhai, Huifang ; Vapiwala, Neha ; Deville, Curtiland ; James, Paul ; Bekelman, Justin E. ; Christodouleas, John P. ; Tochner, Zelig ; Both, Stefan. / Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility. In: Practical Radiation Oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 99-105.
@article{559f2ef71e17485a899ecd851369dee5,
title = "Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility",
abstract = "Background: This study compares target coverage robustness among proton therapy plans for prostate cancer patients treated with 2 laterally opposed fields delivered daily or, alternatively, every other day as single lateral fields, using uniform scanning (US), single-field uniform dose (SFUD), pencil beam scanning (PBS) optimized for uniform target coverage only, SFUD PBS optimized for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing (SFUD-opt), and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods and materials: Ten prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy underwent weekly verification computed tomographic (CT) scans. US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT treatment plans were created and recalculated on weekly verification scans evaluating 2-field daily and single-field target coverage and OAR constraints. Results: The average (±. standard deviation) planning target volume conformity index for US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT clinical plans was 0.53 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.05, 0.78 ± 0.04, and 0.78 ± 0.03, respectively. The average 2-field internal target volume (ITV) coverage was significantly higher for both US and SFUD when individually compared with SFUD-opt and IMPT. There was no significant difference between US and SFUD ITV coverage when comparing 2-field daily versus single-field daily delivery. The average single-field coverage was greatest using US and SFUD with 99{\%} of the ITV being covered by 96.8{\%} ± 0.9{\%} and 96.7{\%} ± 1.3{\%}, respectively, compared with 95.5{\%} ± 0.7{\%} for SFUD-opt. There were no significant differences among the 4 plans regarding OAR dose constraints assessed. Conclusions: Pencil beam scanning techniques are more conformal than US and, when optimized only for uniform target coverage from each field, can be equally as robust relative to anatomic interfraction variations for prostate cancer patients treated with a single field per day technique. The SFUD-opt and IMPT involve highly modulated pencil beam spots and may be less robust to daily interfraction anatomic variations.",
author = "Kirk, {Maura L.} and Shikui Tang and Huifang Zhai and Neha Vapiwala and Curtiland Deville and Paul James and Bekelman, {Justin E.} and Christodouleas, {John P.} and Zelig Tochner and Stefan Both",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prro.2014.05.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "99--105",
journal = "Practical Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1879-8500",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility

AU - Kirk, Maura L.

AU - Tang, Shikui

AU - Zhai, Huifang

AU - Vapiwala, Neha

AU - Deville, Curtiland

AU - James, Paul

AU - Bekelman, Justin E.

AU - Christodouleas, John P.

AU - Tochner, Zelig

AU - Both, Stefan

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Background: This study compares target coverage robustness among proton therapy plans for prostate cancer patients treated with 2 laterally opposed fields delivered daily or, alternatively, every other day as single lateral fields, using uniform scanning (US), single-field uniform dose (SFUD), pencil beam scanning (PBS) optimized for uniform target coverage only, SFUD PBS optimized for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing (SFUD-opt), and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods and materials: Ten prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy underwent weekly verification computed tomographic (CT) scans. US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT treatment plans were created and recalculated on weekly verification scans evaluating 2-field daily and single-field target coverage and OAR constraints. Results: The average (±. standard deviation) planning target volume conformity index for US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT clinical plans was 0.53 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.05, 0.78 ± 0.04, and 0.78 ± 0.03, respectively. The average 2-field internal target volume (ITV) coverage was significantly higher for both US and SFUD when individually compared with SFUD-opt and IMPT. There was no significant difference between US and SFUD ITV coverage when comparing 2-field daily versus single-field daily delivery. The average single-field coverage was greatest using US and SFUD with 99% of the ITV being covered by 96.8% ± 0.9% and 96.7% ± 1.3%, respectively, compared with 95.5% ± 0.7% for SFUD-opt. There were no significant differences among the 4 plans regarding OAR dose constraints assessed. Conclusions: Pencil beam scanning techniques are more conformal than US and, when optimized only for uniform target coverage from each field, can be equally as robust relative to anatomic interfraction variations for prostate cancer patients treated with a single field per day technique. The SFUD-opt and IMPT involve highly modulated pencil beam spots and may be less robust to daily interfraction anatomic variations.

AB - Background: This study compares target coverage robustness among proton therapy plans for prostate cancer patients treated with 2 laterally opposed fields delivered daily or, alternatively, every other day as single lateral fields, using uniform scanning (US), single-field uniform dose (SFUD), pencil beam scanning (PBS) optimized for uniform target coverage only, SFUD PBS optimized for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing (SFUD-opt), and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods and materials: Ten prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy underwent weekly verification computed tomographic (CT) scans. US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT treatment plans were created and recalculated on weekly verification scans evaluating 2-field daily and single-field target coverage and OAR constraints. Results: The average (±. standard deviation) planning target volume conformity index for US, SFUD, SFUD-opt, and IMPT clinical plans was 0.53 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.05, 0.78 ± 0.04, and 0.78 ± 0.03, respectively. The average 2-field internal target volume (ITV) coverage was significantly higher for both US and SFUD when individually compared with SFUD-opt and IMPT. There was no significant difference between US and SFUD ITV coverage when comparing 2-field daily versus single-field daily delivery. The average single-field coverage was greatest using US and SFUD with 99% of the ITV being covered by 96.8% ± 0.9% and 96.7% ± 1.3%, respectively, compared with 95.5% ± 0.7% for SFUD-opt. There were no significant differences among the 4 plans regarding OAR dose constraints assessed. Conclusions: Pencil beam scanning techniques are more conformal than US and, when optimized only for uniform target coverage from each field, can be equally as robust relative to anatomic interfraction variations for prostate cancer patients treated with a single field per day technique. The SFUD-opt and IMPT involve highly modulated pencil beam spots and may be less robust to daily interfraction anatomic variations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924515103&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924515103&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2014.05.008

DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2014.05.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 25413411

AN - SCOPUS:84924515103

VL - 5

SP - 99

EP - 105

JO - Practical Radiation Oncology

JF - Practical Radiation Oncology

SN - 1879-8500

IS - 2

ER -