Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy – Is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning?

Xianliang Wang, Heng Li, Xiaorong Ronald Zhu, Qing Hou, Li Liao, Bo Jiang, Yupeng Li, Pei Wang, Jinyi Lang, Xiaodong Zhang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background and purpose: We hypothesized that a plan's robustness to anatomical changes can be improved by optimizing with multiple CT scans of a patient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan could be developed to meet dose criteria on both planning and adaptive CT plans. Material and methods: Eight lung cancer patients who underwent adaptive IMPT were retrospectively selected. Each patient had two CTs: a primary planning CT (PCT) and an adaptive planning CT (ACT), and IMPT plans associated with the scans. PCT and ACT were then used in combination to optimize one plan (MCT plan). The doses to the target and organs at risk from the PCT plan, ACT plan, P-ACT plan (PCT plan calculated on ACT data), and MCT plans calculated on both CTs were compared. Results: The MCT plan maintained the D95% on both CTs (mean, 65.99 Gy on PCT and 66.02 Gy on ACT). Target dose coverage on ACT was significantly better with the MCT plan than with the P-ACT plan (p = 0.01). MCT plans had slightly higher lung V20 (0.6%, p = 0.02) than did PCT plans. The various plans showed no statistically significant difference in heart and spinal cord dose. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that an IMPT plan can meet the dose criteria on both PCT and ACT, and that MCT optimization can improve the plan's robustness to anatomical change.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)167-173
Number of pages7
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume128
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Proton Therapy
Organs at Risk
Lung Neoplasms
Spinal Cord
Lung

Keywords

  • Adaptive planning
  • Intensity-modulated proton therapy
  • Multiple CT optimization
  • Robust optimization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy – Is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning? / Wang, Xianliang; Li, Heng; Zhu, Xiaorong Ronald; Hou, Qing; Liao, Li; Jiang, Bo; Li, Yupeng; Wang, Pei; Lang, Jinyi; Zhang, Xiaodong.

In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 128, No. 1, 01.07.2018, p. 167-173.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, Xianliang ; Li, Heng ; Zhu, Xiaorong Ronald ; Hou, Qing ; Liao, Li ; Jiang, Bo ; Li, Yupeng ; Wang, Pei ; Lang, Jinyi ; Zhang, Xiaodong. / Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy – Is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning?. In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2018 ; Vol. 128, No. 1. pp. 167-173.
@article{35d5a0ddd61f47bc83439250c7778fed,
title = "Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy – Is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning?",
abstract = "Background and purpose: We hypothesized that a plan's robustness to anatomical changes can be improved by optimizing with multiple CT scans of a patient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan could be developed to meet dose criteria on both planning and adaptive CT plans. Material and methods: Eight lung cancer patients who underwent adaptive IMPT were retrospectively selected. Each patient had two CTs: a primary planning CT (PCT) and an adaptive planning CT (ACT), and IMPT plans associated with the scans. PCT and ACT were then used in combination to optimize one plan (MCT plan). The doses to the target and organs at risk from the PCT plan, ACT plan, P-ACT plan (PCT plan calculated on ACT data), and MCT plans calculated on both CTs were compared. Results: The MCT plan maintained the D95{\%} on both CTs (mean, 65.99 Gy on PCT and 66.02 Gy on ACT). Target dose coverage on ACT was significantly better with the MCT plan than with the P-ACT plan (p = 0.01). MCT plans had slightly higher lung V20 (0.6{\%}, p = 0.02) than did PCT plans. The various plans showed no statistically significant difference in heart and spinal cord dose. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that an IMPT plan can meet the dose criteria on both PCT and ACT, and that MCT optimization can improve the plan's robustness to anatomical change.",
keywords = "Adaptive planning, Intensity-modulated proton therapy, Multiple CT optimization, Robust optimization",
author = "Xianliang Wang and Heng Li and Zhu, {Xiaorong Ronald} and Qing Hou and Li Liao and Bo Jiang and Yupeng Li and Pei Wang and Jinyi Lang and Xiaodong Zhang",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.032",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "128",
pages = "167--173",
journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
issn = "0167-8140",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy – Is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning?

AU - Wang, Xianliang

AU - Li, Heng

AU - Zhu, Xiaorong Ronald

AU - Hou, Qing

AU - Liao, Li

AU - Jiang, Bo

AU - Li, Yupeng

AU - Wang, Pei

AU - Lang, Jinyi

AU - Zhang, Xiaodong

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Background and purpose: We hypothesized that a plan's robustness to anatomical changes can be improved by optimizing with multiple CT scans of a patient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan could be developed to meet dose criteria on both planning and adaptive CT plans. Material and methods: Eight lung cancer patients who underwent adaptive IMPT were retrospectively selected. Each patient had two CTs: a primary planning CT (PCT) and an adaptive planning CT (ACT), and IMPT plans associated with the scans. PCT and ACT were then used in combination to optimize one plan (MCT plan). The doses to the target and organs at risk from the PCT plan, ACT plan, P-ACT plan (PCT plan calculated on ACT data), and MCT plans calculated on both CTs were compared. Results: The MCT plan maintained the D95% on both CTs (mean, 65.99 Gy on PCT and 66.02 Gy on ACT). Target dose coverage on ACT was significantly better with the MCT plan than with the P-ACT plan (p = 0.01). MCT plans had slightly higher lung V20 (0.6%, p = 0.02) than did PCT plans. The various plans showed no statistically significant difference in heart and spinal cord dose. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that an IMPT plan can meet the dose criteria on both PCT and ACT, and that MCT optimization can improve the plan's robustness to anatomical change.

AB - Background and purpose: We hypothesized that a plan's robustness to anatomical changes can be improved by optimizing with multiple CT scans of a patient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan could be developed to meet dose criteria on both planning and adaptive CT plans. Material and methods: Eight lung cancer patients who underwent adaptive IMPT were retrospectively selected. Each patient had two CTs: a primary planning CT (PCT) and an adaptive planning CT (ACT), and IMPT plans associated with the scans. PCT and ACT were then used in combination to optimize one plan (MCT plan). The doses to the target and organs at risk from the PCT plan, ACT plan, P-ACT plan (PCT plan calculated on ACT data), and MCT plans calculated on both CTs were compared. Results: The MCT plan maintained the D95% on both CTs (mean, 65.99 Gy on PCT and 66.02 Gy on ACT). Target dose coverage on ACT was significantly better with the MCT plan than with the P-ACT plan (p = 0.01). MCT plans had slightly higher lung V20 (0.6%, p = 0.02) than did PCT plans. The various plans showed no statistically significant difference in heart and spinal cord dose. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that an IMPT plan can meet the dose criteria on both PCT and ACT, and that MCT optimization can improve the plan's robustness to anatomical change.

KW - Adaptive planning

KW - Intensity-modulated proton therapy

KW - Multiple CT optimization

KW - Robust optimization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031703819&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031703819&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.032

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.032

M3 - Article

C2 - 29054378

AN - SCOPUS:85031703819

VL - 128

SP - 167

EP - 173

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

SN - 0167-8140

IS - 1

ER -