The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

An analysis of plan robustness for esophageal tumors: comparing volumetric modulated arc therapy plans and spot scanning proton planning

An analysis of plan robustness for esophageal tumors: comparing volumetric modulated arc therapy plans and spot scanning proton planning
An analysis of plan robustness for esophageal tumors: comparing volumetric modulated arc therapy plans and spot scanning proton planning
Purpose: planning studies to compare x-ray and proton techniques and to select the most suitable technique for each patient have been hampered by the nonequivalence of several aspects of treatment planning and delivery. A fair comparison should compare similarly advanced delivery techniques from current clinical practice and also assess the robustness of each technique. The present study therefore compared volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and single-field optimization (SFO) spot scanning proton therapy plans created using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose escalation in midesophageal cancer and analyzed the effect of setup and range uncertainties on these plans.

Methods and materials: for 21 patients, SIB plans with a physical dose prescription of 2 Gy or 2.5 Gy/fraction in 25 fractions to planning target volume (PTV)50Gy or PTV62.5Gy (primary tumor with 0.5 cm margins) were created and evaluated for robustness to random setup errors and proton range errors. Dose–volume metrics were compared for the optimal and uncertainty plans, with P<.05 (Wilcoxon) considered significant.

Results: SFO reduced the mean lung dose by 51.4% (range 35.1%-76.1%) and the mean heart dose by 40.9% (range 15.0%-57.4%) compared with VMAT. Proton plan robustness to a 3.5% range error was acceptable. For all patients, the clinical target volume D98 was 95.0% to 100.4% of the prescribed dose and gross tumor volume (GTV) D98 was 98.8% to 101%. Setup error robustness was patient anatomy dependent, and the potential minimum dose per fraction was always lower with SFO than with VMAT. The clinical target volume D98 was lower by 0.6% to 7.8% of the prescribed dose, and the GTV D98 was lower by 0.3% to 2.2% of the prescribed GTV dose.

Conclusions: the SFO plans achieved significant sparing of normal tissue compared with the VMAT plans for midesophageal cancer. The target dose coverage in the SIB proton plans was less robust to random setup errors and might be unacceptable for certain patients. Robust optimization to ensure adequate target coverage of SIB proton plans might be beneficial.
0360-3016
199-207
Warren, Samantha
4a77820d-3875-4b74-8366-6b3be039b858
Partridge, Mike
256a0f46-9740-4251-998f-eef062e896ea
Bolsi, Alessandra
ce2faf7e-50d1-4f8f-b26d-2dbf0ca0d3fc
Hurt, Chris
bf8b37a0-8f08-4b47-b3f3-6fc65f7ab87f
et al.
Warren, Samantha
4a77820d-3875-4b74-8366-6b3be039b858
Partridge, Mike
256a0f46-9740-4251-998f-eef062e896ea
Bolsi, Alessandra
ce2faf7e-50d1-4f8f-b26d-2dbf0ca0d3fc
Hurt, Chris
bf8b37a0-8f08-4b47-b3f3-6fc65f7ab87f

Warren, Samantha, Partridge, Mike and Bolsi, Alessandra , et al. (2016) An analysis of plan robustness for esophageal tumors: comparing volumetric modulated arc therapy plans and spot scanning proton planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 95 (1), 199-207. (doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.01.044).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Purpose: planning studies to compare x-ray and proton techniques and to select the most suitable technique for each patient have been hampered by the nonequivalence of several aspects of treatment planning and delivery. A fair comparison should compare similarly advanced delivery techniques from current clinical practice and also assess the robustness of each technique. The present study therefore compared volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and single-field optimization (SFO) spot scanning proton therapy plans created using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose escalation in midesophageal cancer and analyzed the effect of setup and range uncertainties on these plans.

Methods and materials: for 21 patients, SIB plans with a physical dose prescription of 2 Gy or 2.5 Gy/fraction in 25 fractions to planning target volume (PTV)50Gy or PTV62.5Gy (primary tumor with 0.5 cm margins) were created and evaluated for robustness to random setup errors and proton range errors. Dose–volume metrics were compared for the optimal and uncertainty plans, with P<.05 (Wilcoxon) considered significant.

Results: SFO reduced the mean lung dose by 51.4% (range 35.1%-76.1%) and the mean heart dose by 40.9% (range 15.0%-57.4%) compared with VMAT. Proton plan robustness to a 3.5% range error was acceptable. For all patients, the clinical target volume D98 was 95.0% to 100.4% of the prescribed dose and gross tumor volume (GTV) D98 was 98.8% to 101%. Setup error robustness was patient anatomy dependent, and the potential minimum dose per fraction was always lower with SFO than with VMAT. The clinical target volume D98 was lower by 0.6% to 7.8% of the prescribed dose, and the GTV D98 was lower by 0.3% to 2.2% of the prescribed GTV dose.

Conclusions: the SFO plans achieved significant sparing of normal tissue compared with the VMAT plans for midesophageal cancer. The target dose coverage in the SIB proton plans was less robust to random setup errors and might be unacceptable for certain patients. Robust optimization to ensure adequate target coverage of SIB proton plans might be beneficial.

Text
1-s2.0-S0360301616000651-main - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 22 January 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 30 January 2016
Published date: 12 April 2016

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 488216
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/488216
ISSN: 0360-3016
PURE UUID: 66ce2ff7-5546-4bd2-a1b2-51866991476b
ORCID for Chris Hurt: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1206-8355

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 18 Mar 2024 17:55
Last modified: 23 Mar 2024 03:13

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Samantha Warren
Author: Mike Partridge
Author: Alessandra Bolsi
Author: Chris Hurt ORCID iD
Corporate Author: et al.

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×