title: The rationale for intensity-modulated proton therapy in geometrically challenging cases.
abstract: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) delivered with beam scanning is currently available at a limited number of proton centers. However, a simplified form of IMPT, the technique of field 'patching', has long been a standard practice in proton therapy centers. In field patching, different parts of the target volume are treated from different directions, i.e., a part of the tumor gets either full dose from a radiation field, or almost no dose. Thus, patching represents a form of binary intensity modulation. This study explores the limitations of the standard binary field patching technique, and evaluates possible dosimetric advantages of continuous dose modulations in IMPT. Specifics of the beam delivery technology, i.e., pencil beam scanning versus passive scattering and modulation, are not investigated. We have identified two geometries of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) in which the use of field patching is severely challenged. We focused our investigations on two patient cases that exhibit these geometries: a paraspinal tumor case and a skull-base case. For those cases we performed treatment planning comparisons of three-dimensional conformal proton therapy (3DCPT) with field patching versus IMPT, using commercial and in-house software, respectively. We also analyzed the robustness of the resulting plans with respect to systematic setup errors of ±1 mm and range errors of ±2.5 mm. IMPT is able to better spare OAR while providing superior dose coverage for the challenging cases identified above. Both 3DCPT and IMPT are sensitive to setup errors and range uncertainties, with IMPT showing the largest effect. Nevertheless, when delivery uncertainties are taken into account IMPT plans remain superior regarding target coverage and OAR sparing. On the other hand, some clinical goals, such as the maximum dose to OAR, are more likely to be unmet with IMPT under large range errors. IMPT can potentially improve target coverage and OAR sparing in challenging cases, even when compared with the relatively complicated and time consuming field patching technique. While IMPT plans tend to be more sensitive to delivery uncertainties, their dosimetric advantage generally holds. Robust treatment planning techniques may further reduce the sensitivity of IMPT plans.
authors: Francis H Burr Proton Therapy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. sairos.safai@psi.ch
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Safai
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Trofimov
authors: J A
authors: JA
authors: Adams
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Engelsman
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Bortfeld
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D002813:Chondrosarcoma / Q000532:radiotherapy; D006801:Humans; D058958:Organs at Risk; D061766:Proton Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012888:Skull Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy; D013125:Spinal Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy
references: Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2003 Oct;2(5):437-44
references: 14529308
references: Med Dosim. 2001 Summer;26(2):113-24
references: 11444513
references: Phys Med Biol. 2006 Apr 21;51(8):1991-2009
references: 16585841
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):528-35
references: 22652108
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Mar 21;53(6):1689-700
references: 18367797
references: Phys Med Biol. 2006 Jul 7;51(13):R363-79
references: 16790913
references: Z Med Phys. 2004;14(3):147-52
references: 15462415
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 May 21;55(10):2863-78
references: 20427853
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 21;53(4):1027-42
references: 18263956
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Sep 7;55(17):5103-21
references: 20702927
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 May 1;53(1):244-51
references: 12007965
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Mar 21;53(6):1729-50
references: 18367800
references: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Feb 7;57(3):591-608
references: 22222720
references: Med Phys. 2001 Mar;28(3):317-24
references: 11318312
references: Med Phys. 2005 Nov;32(11):3468-74
references: 16372417
references: Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2003 Oct;2(5):389-99
references: 14529304
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Dec 1;69(5):1600-7
references: 17920782
references: Phys Med Biol. 1999 Jan;44(1):185-205
references: 10071883
references: Med Phys. 2005 Jan;32(1):195-9
references: 15719970
references: Med Phys. 1995 Apr;22(4):353-63
references: 7609715
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 21;56(14):4399-413
references: 21709340
references: Phys Med Biol. 2007 May 21;52(10):2755-73
references: 17473350
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jan 1;82(1):e83-90
references: 21300448
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jan 1;79(1):297-304
references: 20646839
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Nov 21;56(22):7257-71
references: 22037710
references: Med Phys. 1995 Jan;22(1):37-53
references: 7715569
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 21;53(4):1043-56
references: 18263957