Quan E, Liu W, Li Y, Zhang X, Zhu X, Mohan R, Wu R
Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6Part28):3965. doi: 10.1118/1.4736180.
Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using multi-field optimization (MFO) could generate highly conformal dose distributions but it is more sensitive to setup and proton range uncertainties than IMPT using single-field optimization (SFO). This work evaluates the effectiveness of SFO treatment plans with the use of energy absorbers (EAs) to improve the robustness and delivery efficiency of IMPT for head and neck cancers.
IMPT treatment plans were generated using 2-field SFO with an EA in each field (EA-SFO) for four patients with head and neck cancers. We compared the plan quality, robustness, and delivery efficiency of the EA- SFO plan with a 3-field MFO plan that was used to treat the patient. Robustness analysis of each plan was performed to generate two dose distributions, consisting of the highest and the lowest possible doses from spatial and range perturbations at every voxel. Dosimetric indices and the numbers of energy layers required in the EA-SFO and MFO plans were compared.
All the nominal EA-SFO plans are clinically acceptable. They achieved similar levels of target coverage compared to the MFO plans; the differences in D95 of the GTV and CTVs between the two plans were within 3.5%. Although some of the OARs received higher dose in the EA- SFO plan, they were all within tolerance. The EA-SFO plans yielded an average of 38.5% reduction of plan sensitivity to uncertainties in the targets and 18.5% overall. The EA-SFO plans used an average of 79 (46%) fewer energy layers than the MFO plans, which corresponds to nearly 3 minutes shorter delivery time.
The use of energy absorber greatly facilitated the design of clinically acceptable SFO treatment plans. Compared to MFO, EA-SFO not only improved the robustness to setup and range uncertainties, but also reduced the time required for delivery and patient QA.
使用多野优化(MFO)的调强质子治疗(IMPT)可产生高度适形的剂量分布,但与使用单野优化(SFO)的IMPT相比,它对摆位和质子射程不确定性更为敏感。本研究评估了使用能量吸收器(EA)的SFO治疗计划对头颈部癌IMPT的鲁棒性和治疗效率的改善效果。
为4例头颈部癌患者生成了使用2野SFO且每个野带有一个EA的IMPT治疗计划(EA-SFO)。我们将EA-SFO计划的计划质量、鲁棒性和治疗效率与用于治疗该患者的3野MFO计划进行了比较。对每个计划进行鲁棒性分析,以生成两个剂量分布,包括每个体素在空间和射程扰动下的最高和最低可能剂量。比较了EA-SFO和MFO计划中的剂量学指标以及所需的能量层数。
所有名义上的EA-SFO计划在临床上都是可接受的。与MFO计划相比,它们实现了相似的靶区覆盖水平;两个计划之间GTV和CTV的D95差异在3.5%以内。虽然在EA-SFO计划中一些危及器官接受了更高的剂量,但均在耐受范围内。EA-SFO计划对靶区不确定性的计划敏感性平均降低了38.5%,总体降低了18.5%。EA-SFO计划平均比MFO计划少使用79个(46%)能量层,这相当于治疗时间缩短了近3分钟。
能量吸收器的使用极大地促进了临床上可接受的SFO治疗计划的设计。与MFO相比,EA-SFO不仅提高了对摆位和射程不确定性的鲁棒性,还减少了治疗和患者质量保证所需的时间。