The development of rotational proton therapy plans based on a pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) system has been limited, among several other factors, by the energy-switching time between layers, a system-dependent parameter that ranges between a fraction of a second and several seconds. We are investigating mono- and bi-energetic rotational proton modulated arc therapy (PMAT) solutions that would not be affected by long energy switching times. In this context, a systematic selection of the optimal proton energy for each arc is vital. We present a treatment planning comparison of four different range selection methods, analyzing the dosimetric outcomes of the resulting treatment plans created with the ranges obtained. Given the patient geometry and arc definition (gantry and couch trajectories, snout elevation) our in-house treatment planning system (TPS) FoCa was used to find the maximum, medial and minimum water-equivalent thicknesses (WETs) of the target viewed from all possible field orientations. Optimal ranges were subsequently determined using four methods: (1) by dividing the max/min WET interval into equal steps, (2) by taking the average target midpoints from each field, (3) by taking the average WET of all voxels from all field orientations, and (4) by minimizing the fraction of the target which cannot be reached from any of the available angles. After the range (for mono-energetic plans) or ranges (for bi-energetic plans) were selected, the commercial clinical TPS in use in our institution (Varian Eclipse) was used to produce the PMAT plans using multifield optimization. Linear energy transfer (LET) distributions of all plans were also calculated using FoCa and compared among the different methods. Mono- and bi-energetic PMAT plans, composed of a single 180° arc, were created for two patient geometries: a C-shaped target located in the mediastinal area of a thoracic tissue-equivalent phantom and a small brain tumor located directly above the brainstem. All plans were optimized using the same procedure to (1) achieve target coverage, (2) reduce dose to OAR and (3) limit dose hot spots in the target. Final outcomes were compared in terms of the resulting dose and LET distributions. Data shows little significant differences among the four studied methods, with superior results obtained with mono-energetic plans. A streamlined systematic method has been implemented in an in-house TPS to find the optimal range to maximize target coverage with rotational mono- or bi-energetic PBS rotational plans by minimizing the fraction of the target that cannot be reached by any direction.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of an intravenous (IV) contrast agent on proton therapy dose calculation using dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). Two DECT methods are considered. The first one, , attempts to accurately predict the proton stopping powers relative to water (SPR) of contrast enhanced (CE) DECT images, while the second generates a virtual non-contrast (VNC) volume that can be processed as a native non-contrast (NC) one. Both methods are compared against single-energy computed tomography (SECT). The accuracy of SPR predicted for different concentrations of IV contrast diluted in water is first evaluated using simulated data. Results then are validated in an experimental set-up comparing SPR predictions for both NC and CE images to measurements made with a multi-layer ionisation chamber (MLIC). Finally, the impact of IV contrast on dose calculation using both SECT and DECT is evaluated for one liver and one head and neck patient. Using simulated data, DECT is shown to be less sensitive to the presence of IV contrast than SECT, although the performance of the method is sensitive to the level of beam hardening considered. For different concentrations of IV contrast diluted in water, experimental MLIC measurement of SPR agrees with DECT predictions within 3% while SECT introduce errors above 20%. This error in the SPR value results in a range error of up to 3.2 mm (2.6%) for proton beams calculated on SECT CE patient images. The error is reduced below 1 mm using DECT with the and VNC methods. Globally, it is observed that the influence of IV contrast on proton therapy dose calculation is mitigated using DECT over SECT. In patient anatomies, the VNC approach provides the best agreement with the reference dose distribution.

Background and Purpose: Photon Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for primary and metastatic tumors of the liver is challenging for larger lesions. An in silico comparison of paired SBRT and Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy (SBPT) plans was performed to understand the potential advantages of SBPT as a function of tumor size and location. Methods and materials: Theoretical tumor volumes with maximum diameter of 1-10 cm were contoured in the dome, right inferior, left medial, and central locations. SBRT and SBPT plans were generated to deliver 50 Gy in 5 fractions, max dose < 135%. When organs-at-risk (OAR) constraints were exceeded, hypothetical plans (not clinically acceptable) were generated for comparison. Liver normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were applied to evaluate differences between treatment modalities. Results: SBRT and SBPT were able to meet target goals and OAR constraints for lesions up to 7 cm and 9 cm diameter, respectively. SBPT plans resulted in a higher integral gross target dose for all lesions up to 7 cm (mean dose 57.8 ± 2.3 Gy to 64.1 ± 2.2 Gy, p < 0.01). Simultaneously, SBPT spared dose to the uninvolved liver in all locations (from 11.5 ± 5.3 Gy to 8.6 ± 4.4 Gy, p < 0.01), resulting in lower NTCP particularly for larger targets in the dome and central locations. SBPT also spared duodenal dose across all sizes and positions (from 7.3 ± 1.1 Gy to 1.1 ± 0.3 Gy, p < 0.05). Conclusion: The main advantages of SBPT over SBRT is meeting plan goals and constrains for larger targets, particularly dome and central locations, and sparing dose to uninvolved liver. For such patients, SBPT may allow improvements in tumor control and treatment safety.

Compared with photon stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans that may have to use many more penetrating x-ray beams for each isocenter, proton SBRT with ultrahypofractionated doses use fewer beam angles and offer significantly reduced low-dose radiation bath to normal liver tissue. We demonstrate techniques to deliver safe and effective proton SBRT, where planning and organ motion complexity further increased with multiple liver lesions. For treatment planning, we recommend robust and logical beam angles, avoiding devices and encouraging entry perpendicular to the dominant motion, as well as volumetric repainting to mitigate the interplay effect to clinically acceptable levels. This report highlights the significant technical challenges with ultrahypofractionated proton pencil beam scanning liver therapy, how they are managed, and the effectiveness of this treatment.

Purpose: Rotational proton radiotherapy would be an interesting treatment modality if it proves to produce dose distributions that conform to the target as well or better than currently available treatment modalities, while reducing the dose to the surrounding organs at risk. A treatment planning study is presented, showing how this objective can be achieved using a single or small number of scanned mono‐energetic pencil beams delivered while the proton gantry rotates at the same time that they may deliver faster and more biologically effective treatments than current proton modalities.Methods Proton treatment using single‐ (SFO) and multi‐field optimized (MFO) PBS plans are compared with PMAT plans in phantoms of different shape and uniformity as well as on a brain case. The method followed in ECLIPSE to produce PMAT plans is presented and the feasibility is discussed. Results Table 1 shows that the conformity and uniformity of the PMAT plans is of similar order than those of the SFO and MFO plans. However, in the brain case, the DVHs shown in Figure 1 indicate a significant reduction of the dose to the OARs when PMAT is used. Similarly, the use of PMAT increases the LET in the treatment area, which could translate into a more biologically effective treatment.Conclusions PMAT could provide dose distributions as conformal as current PBS plans but could also offer faster beam delivery and more biologically effective proton plans.