Technical Note: Treatment planning system (TPS) approximations matter - comparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan quality and robustness between a commercial and an in-house developed TPS for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
- PMID: 31498885
- DOI: 10.1002/mp.13809
Technical Note: Treatment planning system (TPS) approximations matter - comparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan quality and robustness between a commercial and an in-house developed TPS for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Abstract
Purpose: Approximate dose calculation methods were used in the nominal dose distribution and the perturbed dose distributions due to uncertainties in a commercial treatment planning system (CTPS) for robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We aimed to investigate whether the approximations influence plan quality, robustness, and interplay effect of the resulting IMPT plans for the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer patients.
Materials and methods: Ten consecutively treated locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were selected. Two IMPT plans were created for each patient using our in-house developed TPS, named "Solo," and also the CTPS, EclipseTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively. The plans were designed to deliver prescription doses to internal target volumes (ITV) drawn by a physician on averaged four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT). Solo plans were imported back to CTPS, and recalculated in CTPS for fair comparison. Both plans were further verified for each patient by recalculating doses in the inhalation and exhalation phases to ensure that all plans met clinical requirements. Plan robustness was quantified on all phases using dose-volume-histograms (DVH) indices in the worst-case scenario. The interplay effect was evaluated for every plan using an in-house developed software, which randomized starting phases of each field per fraction and accumulated dose in the exhalation phase based on the patient's breathing motion pattern and the proton spot delivery in a time-dependent fashion. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Results: Compared to the plans generated using CTPS on the averaged CT, Solo plans had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity (normalized by the prescription dose) in the worst-case scenario [ITV D95% : 98.04% vs 96.28%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.020; ITV D5% -D95% : 7.20% vs 9.03%, P = 0.049] while all DVH indices were comparable in the nominal scenario. On the inhalation phase, Solo plans had better target dose coverage and cord Dmax in the nominal scenario [ITV D95% : 99.36% vs 98.45%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.014; cord Dmax : 20.07 vs 23.71 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027] with better target coverage and cord Dmax in the worst-case scenario [ITV D95% : 97.89% vs 96.47%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax : 24.57 vs 28.14 Gy(RBE), P = 0.037]. On the exhalation phase, similar phenomena were observed in the nominal scenario [ITV D95% : 99.63% vs 98.87%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax : 19.67 vs 23.66 Gy(RBE), P = 0.039] and in the worst-case scenario [ITV D95% : 98.20% vs 96.74%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.027; cord Dmax : 23.47 vs 27.93 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027]. In terms of interplay effect, plans generated by Solo had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity, less hot spots, and lower esophageal Dmean , and cord Dmax [ITV D95% : 101.81% vs 98.68%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.002; ITV D5% -D95% : 2.94% vs 7.51%, P = 0.002; cord Dmax : 18.87 vs 22.29 Gy(RBE), P = 0.014].
Conclusions: Solo-generated IMPT plans provide improved cord sparing, better target robustness in all considered phases, and reduced interplay effect compared with CTPS. Consequently, the approximation methods currently used in commercial TPS programs may have space for improvement in generating optimal IMPT plans for patient cases with locally advanced lung cancer.
Keywords: interplay effect; lung cancer; proton beam therapy; robustness; treatment planning system.
© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Similar articles
-
Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) interplay effect evaluation of asymmetric breathing with simultaneous uncertainty considerations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Med Phys. 2020 Nov;47(11):5428-5440. doi: 10.1002/mp.14491. Epub 2020 Oct 13. Med Phys. 2020. PMID: 32964474 Free PMC article.
-
Dosimetric comparison of distal esophageal carcinoma plans for patients treated with small-spot intensity-modulated proton versus volumetric-modulated arc therapies.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 Jul;20(7):15-27. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12623. Epub 2019 May 21. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019. PMID: 31112371 Free PMC article.
-
Exploratory Study of 4D versus 3D Robust Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):523-533. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.002. Epub 2015 Nov 10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016. PMID: 26725727 Free PMC article.
-
Robust optimization in lung treatment plans accounting for geometric uncertainty.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 May;19(3):19-26. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12291. Epub 2018 Mar 10. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018. PMID: 29524301 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Proton therapy - Present and future.Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2017 Jan 15;109:26-44. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.11.006. Epub 2016 Dec 3. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2017. PMID: 27919760 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Proton beam radiotherapy for patients with early-stage and advanced lung cancer: a narrative review with contemporary clinical recommendations.J Thorac Dis. 2021 Feb;13(2):1270-1285. doi: 10.21037/jtd-20-2501. J Thorac Dis. 2021. PMID: 33717598 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) interplay effect evaluation of asymmetric breathing with simultaneous uncertainty considerations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Med Phys. 2020 Nov;47(11):5428-5440. doi: 10.1002/mp.14491. Epub 2020 Oct 13. Med Phys. 2020. PMID: 32964474 Free PMC article.
-
Collimating individual beamlets in pencil beam scanning proton therapy, a dosimetric investigation.Front Oncol. 2022 Nov 11;12:1031340. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1031340. eCollection 2022. Front Oncol. 2022. PMID: 36439436 Free PMC article.
-
Beam angle comparison for distal esophageal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Nov;21(11):141-152. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13049. Epub 2020 Oct 15. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020. PMID: 33058523 Free PMC article.
-
Technical note: Generalizable and promptable artificial intelligence model to augment clinical delineation in radiation oncology.Med Phys. 2024 Mar;51(3):2187-2199. doi: 10.1002/mp.16965. Epub 2024 Feb 6. Med Phys. 2024. PMID: 38319676 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7-30.
-
- Allen AM, Pawlicki T, Dong L, et al. An evidence based review of proton beam therapy: the report of ASTRO’s emerging technology committee. Radiother Oncol. 2012;103:8-11.
-
- Farray D, Mirkovic N, Albain KS. Multimodality therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3257-3269.
-
- Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al. Overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2342-2350.
-
- Chan OSH, Lee MCH, Hung AWM, Chang ATY, Yeung RMW, Lee AWM. The superiority of hybrid-volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) technique over double arcs VMAT and 3D-conformal technique in the treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer - a planning study. Radiother Oncol. 2011;101:298-302.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous