Abstract:Utilizing Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for brain cancer patient has been reaching its dosimetric limitation due to the large lateral penumbra of the pencil beam spots and secondary proton scattering in the air and tissue. To improve the plan quality of using IMPT, new merging techniques were under development including collimator base IMPT (co-IMPT) and Spot-Scanning Proton Arc (SPArc) therapy. This is the first study to quantitatively investigate the dosimetric outcome and benefits among these three different treatment modalities (IMPT, co-IMPT and SPArc) for brain cancer treatment. A glioblastoma (GBM) patient CT and structure data set was used in this study whose clinical target volume (CTV) is abutting the brainstem. 3mm expansion from CTV to PTV is used. PTV is prescribed to 66 Gy with acceptable minor deviation 95% PTV covered by 95% of prescription dose (6270 Gy) due to the brainstem location. 3-field IMPT uses single field optimization technique to ensure the uniform PTV coverage through all three beams (PA; LT-LAT; Vertex directions); 3-field co-IMPT uses the same beam arrangement but adding a block margin 5mm for PTV to reduce the lateral penumbra; SPArc used two non-coplanar arcs. All theplans use the same objective functions for the optimization. Final objective values of each plan were analyzed. The lower of objective value means a better agreement to the plan optimization goal. Plan qualities were evaluated via Homogeneity Index (GI = D5%/D95%); Comformity Index (CI = Target volume covered by the prescription/ total volume received prescription dose); Brainstem maximum dose (0.03cc); Brainstem mean dose; mean brain dose. Treatment delivery time is estimated based on 2ms spot switching time, gantry rotation speed = 6 degree per second. Proton therapy systems with different energy layer switching time (ELST) from 0.1s to 4s were simulated as well. Comparing SPArc, co-IMPT and IMPT plans, the brainstem maximum dose received 49.99Gy, 53.41Gy and 54.10Gy; The brainstem mean dose received 16.99Gy, 23.19Gy and 25.18Gy and the mean brain dose received 6.12Gy, 8.12Gy and 9.11Gy respectively. Furthermore, CI of PTV is 0.97 for SPArc, 0.86 for co-IMPT and 0.83 for IMPT respectively. HI of PTV is 0.76 for SPArc; 0.79 for co-IMPT and 0.78 for IMPT. SPArc treatment delivery time is close to 3 field IMPT or co-IMPT when the ELST is close to 0.1s (Table 1). The final plan objective value is 0.1857 for SPArc; 0.2927 for co-IMPT; 0.3041 for IMPT.Abstract TU_26_3150; Table 1Estimated treatment delivery time vs. ELST using IMPT; co-IMPT and SPArcEnergy Layer Switching Time (s)IMPT (s)co-IMPT (s)SPArc (s)0.17878950.295851270.5108108222114514638122202216993295298101743603741335 Open table in a new tab The study shows both co-IMPT and SPArc could improve the plan quality and spare the dose to organs abutting the target. SPArc demonstrated a significant potential to further improve the plan quality. More developments are needed in order to deliver SPArc therapy in a clinical machine.

A dosimetric and robustness analysis of Proton Arc Therapy (PAT) with Early Energy Layer and Spot Assignment (ELSA) for lung cancer versus conventional Intensity modulated therapy (IMPT)

Impact Of Interfractional Motion On Hypofractionated Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy And Vmat Delivery For Prostate Cancer

Proton arc therapy plan optimization with energy layer pre-selection driven by organ at risk sparing and delivery time

Efficient proton arc optimization and delivery through energy layer pre-selection and post-filtering

Efficient proton arc optimization and delivery through energy layer pre‐selection and post‐filtering

Secondary cancer risk in six anatomical sites when using PAT, IMPT, and VMAT/IMRT radiotherapy

Impact of and interplay between proton arc therapy and range uncertainties in proton therapy for head-and-neck cancer

Intensity-modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Interplay Effect Evaluation of Asymmetric Breathing with Simultaneous Uncertainty Considerations in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Explore the Potential Clinical and Dosimetric Improvements for Brain Cancer Proton Beam Treatment Based on the New Delivery and Planning Technique Developments - Collimator Based Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy and Spot-Scanning Proton Arc Therapy

Intensity-modulated Proton and Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy Using a Fixed-Beam System for Locally Advanced Lung Cancer: Dosimetric Comparison with X-Ray Radiotherapy and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) Evaluation.

Bi-criteria Pareto optimization to balance irradiation time and dosimetric objectives in proton arc therapy

Clinical Implementation of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Thoracic Malignancies.

Evaluation and Mitigation of the Interplay Effects of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer in a Clinical Setting.

A machine learning‐based approach to predict energy layer for each field in spot‐scanning proton arc therapy for lung cancer: A feasibility study

Robust treatment planning with 4D intensity modulated carbon ion therapy for multiple targets in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer

Intensity modulated proton arc therapy via geometry-based energy selection for ependymoma

Dosimetric comparison of magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for distal esophageal cancer

Dosimetric Comparison of IMPT Vs VMAT for Multiple Lung Lesions: an NTCP Model-Based Decision-Making Strategy

Balancing robustness and adaptation rate for proton therapy of lung cancer patients

Effectiveness of Robust Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning for Head and Neck Cancers

Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for mediastinal lymphomas in deep inspiration breath-hold: a retrospective assessment of plan robustness