The majority of the patients showed little differences in NTCPs between the different delineation guidelines. However, large NTCP differences >10% were found in 7% of the patients. For correct use of NTCP models in individual patients, uniform delineation guidelines are of great importance.

Large-field photon radiotherapy is current standard in the treatment of cervical cancer patients. However, with the increasing availability of Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy (PBS-PT) and robust treatment planning techniques, protons may have significant advantages for cervical cancer patients in the reduction of toxicity. In this study, PBS-PT and photon Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) were compared, examining target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) dose, taking inter-and intrafraction motion into account. Materials and methods: Twelve cervical cancer patients were included in this in-silico planning study. In all cases, a planning CT scan, five weekly repeat CT scans (reCTs) and an additional reCT 10 min after the first reCT were available. Two-arc VMAT and robustly optimised two-and four-field (2F and 4F) PBS-PT plans were robustly evaluated on planCTs and reCTs using setup and range uncertainty. Nominal OAR doses and voxel-wise minimum target coverage robustness were compared. Results: Average voxel-wise minimum accumulated doses for pelvic target structures over all patients were adequate for both photon and proton treatment techniques (D98 > 95%, [91.7-99.3%]). Average accumulated dose of the para-aortic region was lower than the required 95%, D98 > 94.4% [91.1-98.2%]. With PBS-PT 4F, dose to all OARs was significantly lower than with VMAT. Major differences were observed for mean bowel bag V 15Gy : 60% [39-70%] for VMAT vs 30% [10-52%] and 32% [9-54%] for PBS-PT 2F and 4F and for mean bone marrow V 10Gy : 88% [82-97%] for VMAT vs 66% [60-73%] and 67% [60-75%] for PBS-PT 2F and 4F. Conclusion: Robustly optimised PBS-PT for cervical cancer patients shows equivalent target robustness against inter-and intra-fraction variability compared to VMAT, and offers significantly better OAR sparing.

No abstract