Comparison of deep inspiration breath hold and free breathing intensity modulated proton therapy of locally advanced lung cancer.

Background and purpose: For locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can reduce organ at risk (OAR) doses compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces OAR doses compared to free breathing (FB) in IMRT. In IMPT, differences in dose distributions and robustness between DIBH and FB are unclear. In this study, we compare DIBH to FB in IMPT, and IMPT to IMRT. Materials and methods: Fortyone LA-NSCLC patients were prospectively included. 4D computed tomography images (4DCTs) and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. A new system for automated robust planning was developed and used to generate a FB and a DIBH IMPT plan for each patient. Plans were compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). Dose recalculations on repeat CTs were used to compare inter-fraction plan robustness. Results: In IMPT, DIBH reduced median lungs Dmean from 9.3 Gy(RBE) to 8.0 Gy(RBE) compared to FB, and radiation pneumonitis NTCP from 10.9 % to 9.4 % (p < 0.001). Inter-fraction plan robustness for DIBH and FB was similar. Median NTCPs for radiation pneumonitis and mortality were around 9 percentage points lower with IMPT than IMRT (p < 0.001). These differences were much larger than between FB and DIBH within each modality. Conclusion: DIBH IMPT resulted in reduced lung dose and radiation pneumonitis NTCP compared to FB IMPT. Inter-fraction robustness was comparable. OAR doses were far lower in IMPT than IMRT.

Clinical acceptance and dosimetric impact of automatically delineated elective target and organs at risk for head and neck MR-Linac patients.

Background: MR-Linac allows for daily online treatment adaptation to the observed geometry of tumor targets and organs at risk (OARs). Manual delineation for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients takes 45-75 minutes, making it unsuitable for online adaptive radiotherapy. This study aims to clinically and dosimetrically validate an in-house developed algorithm which automatically delineates the elective target volume and OARs for HNC patients in under a minute. Methods: Auto-contours were generated by an in-house model with 2D U-Net architecture trained and tested on 52 MRI scans via leave-one-out cross-validation. A randomized selection of 684 automated and manual contours (split half-and-half) was presented to an oncologist to perform a blind test and determine the clinical acceptability. The dosimetric impact was investigated for 13 patients evaluating the differences in dosage for all structures. Results: Automated contours were generated in 8 seconds per MRI scan. The blind test concluded that 114 (33%) of auto-contours required adjustments with 85 only minor and 15 (4.4%) of manual contours required adjustments with 12 only minor. Dosimetric analysis showed negligible dosimetric differences between clinically acceptable structures and structures requiring minor changes. The Dice Similarity coefficients for the auto-contours ranged from 0.66 ± 0.11 to 0.88 ± 0.06 across all structures. Conclusion: Majority of auto-contours were clinically acceptable and could be used without any adjustments. Majority of structures requiring minor adjustments did not lead to significant dosimetric differences, hence manual adjustments were needed only for structures requiring major changes, which takes no longer than 10 minutes per patient.

A fast and robust constraint-based online re-optimization approach for automated online adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy in head and neck cancer.

Objective. In head-and-neck cancer intensity modulated proton therapy, adaptive radiotherapy is currently restricted to offline re-planning, mitigating the effect of slow changes in patient anatomies. Daily online adaptations can potentially improve dosimetry. Here, a new, fully automated online re-optimization strategy is presented. In a retrospective study, this online re-optimization approach was compared to our trigger-based offline re-planning (offlineTBre-planning) schedule, including extensive robustness analyses.Approach. The online re-optimization method employs automated multi-criterial re-optimization, using robust optimization with 1 mm setup-robustness settings (in contrast to 3 mm for offlineTBre-planning). Hard planning constraints and spot addition are used to enforce adequate target coverage, avoid prohibitively large maximum doses and minimize organ-at-risk doses. For 67 repeat-CTs from 15 patients, fraction doses of the two strategies were compared for the CTVs and organs-at-risk. Per repeat-CT, 10.000 fractions with different setup and range robustness settings were simulated using polynomial chaos expansion for fast and accurate dose calculations.Main results. For 14/67 repeat-CTs, offlineTBre-planning resulted in <50% probability ofD98%≥ 95% of the prescribed dose (Dpres) in one or both CTVs, which never happened with online re-optimization. With offlineTBre-planning, eight repeat-CTs had zero probability of obtainingD98%≥ 95%Dpresfor CTV7000, while the minimum probability with online re-optimization was 81%. Risks of xerostomia and dysphagia grade ≥ II were reduced by 3.5 ± 1.7 and 3.9 ± 2.8 percentage point [mean ± SD] (p< 10-5for both). In online re-optimization, adjustment of spot configuration followed by spot-intensity re-optimization took 3.4 min on average.Significance. The fast online re-optimization strategy always prevented substantial losses of target coverage caused by day-to-day anatomical variations, as opposed to the clinical trigger-based offline re-planning schedule. On top of this, online re-optimization could be performed with smaller setup robustness settings, contributing to improved organs-at-risk sparing.

Validation of Fully Automated Robust Multicriterial Treatment Planning for Head and Neck Cancer IMPT.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to compare robust intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans, automatically generated with wish-list-based multicriterial optimization as implemented in Erasmus-iCycle, with manually created robust clinical IMPT plans for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-three patients with head and neck cancer were retrospectively included. All patients were previously treated with a manually created IMPT plan with 7000 cGy dose prescription to the primary tumor (clinical target volume [CTV]7000) and 5425 cGy dose prescription to the bilateral elective volumes (CTV5425). Plans had a 4-beam field configuration and were generated with scenario-based robust optimization (21 scenarios, 3-mm setup error, and ±3% density uncertainty for the CTVs). Three clinical plans were used to configure the Erasmus-iCycle wish-list for automated generation of robust IMPT plans for the other 30 included patients, in line with clinical planning requirements. Automatically and manually generated IMPT plans were compared for (robust) target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP). No manual fine-tuning of automatically generated plans was performed. RESULTS: For all automatically generated plans, voxel-wise minimum D98% values for the CTVs were within clinical constraints and similar to manual plans. All investigated OAR parameters were favorable in the automatically generated plans (all P < .001). Median reductions in mean dose to OARs went up to 667 cGy for the inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle, and median reductions in D0.03cm3 in serial OARs ranged up to 1795 cGy for the spinal cord surface. The observed lower mean dose in parallel OARs resulted in statistically significant lower NTCP for xerostomia (grade ≥2: 34.4% vs 38.0%; grade ≥3: 9.0% vs 10.2%) and dysphagia (grade ≥2: 11.8% vs 15.0%; grade ≥3: 1.8% vs 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Erasmus-iCycle was able to produce IMPT dose distributions fully automatically with similar (robust) target coverage and improved OAR doses and NTCPs compared with clinical manual planning, with negligible hands-on planning workload.

Improving knowledge-based treatment planning for lung cancer radiotherapy with automatic multi-criteria optimized training plans.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is a method for automated radiotherapy treatment planning where appropriate optimization objectives for new patients are predicted based on a library of training plans. KBP can save time and improve organ at-risk sparing and inter-patient consistency compared to manual planning, but its performance depends on the quality of the training plans. We used another system for automated planning, which generates multi-criteria optimized (MCO) plans based on a wish list, to create training plans for the KBP model, to allow seamless integration of knowledge from a new system into clinical routine. Model performance was compared for KBP models trained with manually created and automatic MCO treatment plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two RapidPlan models with the same 30 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients included were created, one containing manually created clinical plans (RP_CLIN) and one containing fully automatic multi-criteria optimized plans (RP_MCO). For 15 validation patients, model performance was compared in terms of dose-volume parameters and normal tissue complication probabilities, and an oncologist performed a blind comparison of the clinical (CLIN), RP_CLIN, and RP_MCO plans. RESULTS: The heart and esophagus doses were lower for RP_MCO compared to RP_CLIN, resulting in an average reduction in the risk of 2-year mortality by 0.9 percentage points and the risk of acute esophageal toxicity by 1.6 percentage points with RP_MCO. The oncologist preferred the RP_MCO plan for 8 patients and the CLIN plan for 7 patients, while the RP_CLIN plan was not preferred for any patients. CONCLUSION: RP_MCO improved OAR sparing compared to RP_CLIN and was selected for implementation in the clinic. Training a KBP model with clinical plans may lead to suboptimal output plans, and making an extra effort to optimize the library plans in the KBP model creation phase can improve the plan quality for many future patients.

The impact of bone marrow sparing on organs at risk dose for cervical cancer: a Pareto front analysis.

Background and purpose: To quantify the increase in bladder and rectum dose of a bone marrow sparing (BMS) VMAT strategy for primary treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Materials and methods: Twenty patients with stage IB-IVA cervical cancer were selected for this study. The whole Pelvic Bones (PB) was taken as substitute for bone marrow. For every patient, Pareto-optimal plans were generated to explore the trade-off between rectum, bladder, and PB mean dose. The PB mean dose was decreased in steps of 1 Gy. For each step, the increase in rectum and bladder mean dose was quantified. The increase in mean dose of other OAR compared to no BMS was constrained to 1 Gy. Results: In total, 931 plans of 19 evaluable patients were analyzed. The average [range] mean dose of PB without BMS was 22.8 [20.7-26.2] Gy. When maximum BMS was applied, the average reduction in mean PB dose was 5.4 [3.0-6.8] Gy resulting in an average mean PB dose of 17.5 [15.8-19.8] Gy. For <1 Gy increase in both the bladder and the rectum mean dose, the PB mean dose could be decreased by >2 Gy, >3 Gy, >4 Gy, and >5 Gy for 19/19, 13/19, 5/19, and 1/19 patients, respectively. Conclusion: Based on the comprehensive three-dimensional Pareto front analysis, we conclude that 2-5 Gy BMS can be implemented without a clinically relevant increase in mean dose to other OAR. If BMS is too dominant, it results in a large increase in mean dose to other OAR. Therefore, we recommend implementing moderate BMS for the treatment of LACC patients with VMAT.

Per-fraction planning to enhance optimization degrees of freedom compared to the conventional single-plan approach.

Objective. In conventional radiotherapy, a single treatment plan is generated pre-treatment, and delivered in daily fractions. In this study, we propose to generate different treatment plans for all fractions ('Per-fraction' planning) to reduce cumulative organs at risk (OAR) doses. Per-fraction planning was compared to the 'Conventional' single-plan approach for non-coplanar 4 × 9.5 Gy prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).Approach. An in-house application for fully automated, non-coplanar multi-criterial treatment planning with integrated beam angle and fluence optimization was used for plan generations. For the Conventional approach, a single 12-beam non-coplanar IMRT plan with individualized beam angles was generated for each of the 20 included patients. In Per-fraction planning, four fraction plans were generated for each patient. For each fraction, a different set of patient-specific 12-beam configurations could be automatically selected. Per-fraction plans were sequentially generated by adding dose to already generated fraction plan(s). For each fraction, the cumulative- and fraction dose were simultaneously optimized, allowing some minor constraint violations in fraction doses, but not in cumulative.Main results. In the Per-fraction approach, on average 32.9 ± 3.1 [29;39] unique beams per patient were used. PTV doses in the separate Per-fraction plans were acceptable and highly similar to those in Conventional plans, while also fulfilling all OAR hard constraints. When comparing total cumulative doses, Per-fraction planning showed improved bladder sparing for all patients with reductions in Dmean of 22.6% (p= 0.0001) and in D1cc of 2.0% (p= 0.0001), reductions in patient volumes receiving 30% and 50% of the prescribed dose of 54.7% and 6.3%, respectively, and a 3.1% lower rectum Dmean (p= 0.007). Rectum D1cc was 4.1% higher (p= 0.0001) and Urethra dose was similar.Significance. In this proof-of-concept paper, Per-fraction planning resulted in several dose improvements in healthy tissues compared to the Conventional single-plan approach, for similar PTV dose. By keeping the number of beams per fraction the same as in Conventional planning, reported dosimetric improvements could be obtained without increase in fraction durations. Further research is needed to explore the full potential of the Per-fraction planning approach.

Dosimetric impact of adaptive proton therapy in head and neck cancer - A review.

Background: Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) is susceptible to anatomical changes and patient set-up inaccuracies during the radiotherapy course, which can cause discrepancies between planned and delivered dose. The discrepancies can be counteracted by adaptive replanning strategies. This article reviews the observed dosimetric impact of adaptive proton therapy (APT) and the timing to perform a plan adaptation in IMPT in HNC. Methods: A literature search of articles published in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from January 2010 to March 2022 was performed. Among a total of 59 records assessed for possible eligibility, ten articles were included in this review. Results: Included studies reported on target coverage deterioration in IMPT plans during the RT course, which was recovered with the application of an APT approach. All APT plans showed an average improved target coverage for the high- and low-dose targets as compared to the accumulated dose on the planned plans. Dose improvements up to 2.5 Gy (3.5 %) and up to 4.0 Gy (7.1 %) in the D98 of the high- and low dose targets were observed with APT. Doses to the organs at risk (OARs) remained equal or decreased slightly after APT was applied. In the included studies, APT was largely performed once, which resulted in the largest target coverage improvement, but eventual additional APT improved the target coverage further. There is no data showing what is the most appropriate timing for APT. Conclusion: APT during IMPT for HNC patients improves target coverage. The largest improvement in target coverage was found with a single adaptive intervention, and an eventual second or more frequent APT application improved the target coverage further. Doses to the OARs remained equal or decreased slightly after applying APT. The most optimal timing for APT is yet to be determined.

Pencil-beam Delivery Pattern Optimization Increases Dose Rate for Stereotactic FLASH Proton Therapy.

PURPOSE: FLASH dose rates >40 Gy/s are readily available in proton therapy (PT) with cyclotron-accelerated beams and pencil-beam scanning (PBS). The PBS delivery pattern will affect the local dose rate, as quantified by the PBS dose rate (PBS-DR), and therefore needs to be accounted for in FLASH-PT with PBS, but it is not yet clear how. Our aim was to optimize patient-specific scan patterns for stereotactic FLASH-PT of early-stage lung cancer and lung metastases, maximizing the volume irradiated with PBS-DR >40 Gy/s of the organs at risk voxels irradiated to >8 Gy (FLASH coverage). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Plans to 54 Gy/3 fractions with 3 equiangular coplanar 244 MeV proton shoot-through transmission beams for 20 patients were optimized with in-house developed software. Planning target volume-based planning with a 5 mm margin was used. Planning target volume ranged from 4.4 to 84 cc. Scan-pattern optimization was performed with a Genetic Algorithm, run in parallel for 20 independent populations (islands). Mapped crossover, inversion, swap, and shift operators were applied to achieve (local) optimality on each island, with migration between them for global optimality. The cost function was chosen to maximize the FLASH coverage per beam at >8 Gy, >40 Gy/s, and 40 nA beam current. The optimized patterns were evaluated on FLASH coverage, PBS-DR distribution, and population PBS-DR-volume histograms, compared with standard line-by-line scanning. Robustness against beam current variation was investigated. RESULTS: The optimized patterns have a snowflake-like structure, combined with outward swirling for larger targets. A population median FLASH coverage of 29.0% was obtained for optimized patterns compared with 6.9% for standard patterns, illustrating a significant increase in FLASH coverage for optimized patterns. For beam current variations of 5 nA, FLASH coverage varied between -6.1%-point and 2.2%-point for optimized patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements on the PBS-DR and, hence, on FLASH coverage and potential healthy-tissue sparing are obtained by sequential scan-pattern optimization. The optimizer is flexible and may be further fine-tuned, based on the exact conditions for FLASH.

Patient selection, inter-fraction plan robustness and reduction of toxicity risk with deep inspiration breath hold in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: State-of-the-art radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is performed with intensity-modulation during free breathing (FB). Previous studies have found encouraging geometric reproducibility and patient compliance of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC patients. However, dosimetric comparisons of DIBH with FB are sparse, and DIBH is not routinely used for this patient group. The objective of this simulation study was therefore to compare DIBH and FB in a prospective cohort of LA-NSCLC patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods: For 38 LA-NSCLC patients, 4DCTs and DIBH CTs were acquired for treatment planning and during the first and third week of radiotherapy treatment. Using automated planning, one FB and one DIBH IMRT plan were generated for each patient. FB and DIBH was compared in terms of dosimetric parameters and NTCP. The treatment plans were recalculated on the repeat CTs to evaluate robustness. Correlations between ΔNTCPs and patient characteristics that could potentially predict the benefit of DIBH were explored. Results: DIBH reduced the median Dmean to the lungs and heart by 1.4 Gy and 1.1 Gy, respectively. This translated into reductions in NTCP for radiation pneumonitis grade ≥2 from 20.3% to 18.3%, and for 2-year mortality from 51.4% to 50.3%. The organ at risk sparing with DIBH remained significant in week 1 and week 3 of treatment, and the robustness of the target coverage was similar for FB and DIBH. While the risk of radiation pneumonitis was consistently reduced with DIBH regardless of patient characteristics, the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was evident among patients with upper and left lower lobe tumors but not right lower lobe tumors. Conclusion: Compared to FB, DIBH allowed for smaller target volumes and similar target coverage. DIBH reduced the lung and heart dose, as well as the risk of radiation pneumonitis and 2-year mortality, for 92% and 74% of LA-NSCLC patients, respectively. However, the advantages varied considerably between patients, and the ability to reduce the risk of 2-year mortality was dependent on tumor location. Evaluation of repeat CTs showed similar robustness of the dose distributions with each technique.

An online adaptive plan library approach for intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), the impact of setup errors and anatomical changes is commonly mitigated by robust optimization with population-based setup robustness (SR) settings and offline replanning. In this study we propose and evaluate an alternative approach based on daily plan selection from patient-specific pre-treatment established plan libraries (PLs). Clinical implementation of the PL strategy would be rather straightforward compared to daily online re-planning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 15 head-and-neck cancer patients, the planning CT was used to generate a PL with 5 plans, robustly optimized for increasing SR: 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 mm, and 3% range robustness. Repeat CTs (rCTs) and realistic setup and range uncertainty distributions were used for simulation of treatment courses for the PL approach, treatments with fixed SR (fSR3) and a trigger-based offline adaptive schedule for 3 mm SR (fSR3OfA). Daily plan selection in the PL approach was based only on recomputed dose to the CTV on the rCT. RESULTS: Compared to using fSR3 and fSR3OfA, the risk of xerostomia grade ≥ II & III and dysphagia ≥ grade III were significantly reduced with the PL. For 6/15 patients the risk of xerostomia and/or dysphagia ≥ grade II could be reduced by > 2% by using PL. For the other patients, adherence to target coverage constraints was often improved. fSR3OfA resulted in significantly improved coverage compared to PL for selected patients. CONCLUSION: The proposed PL approach resulted in overall reduced NTCPs compared to fSR3 and fSR3OfA at limited cost in target coverage.

Trade-off in healthy tissue sparing of FLASH and fractionation in stereotactic proton therapy of lung lesions with transmission beams.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE: Besides a dose-rate threshold of 40-100 Gy/s, the FLASH effect may require a dose > 3.5-7 Gy. Even in hypofractioned treatments, with all beams delivered in each fraction (ABEF), most healthy tissue is irradiated to a lower fraction dose. This can be circumvented by single-beam-per-fraction (SBPF) delivery, with a loss of healthy tissue sparing by fractionation. We investigated the trade-off between FLASH and loss of fractionation in SBPF stereotactic proton therapy of lung cancer and determined break-even FLASH-enhancement ratios (FERs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment plans for 12 patients were generated. GTV delineations were available and a 5 mm GTV-PTV margin was applied. Equiangular arrangements of 3, 5, 7, and 9 244 MeV proton transmission beams were used. To facilitate SBPF, the number of fractions was equal to the number of beams. Iso-effective fractionation schedules with a single field uniform dose prescription were used: D95%,PTV = 100%Dpres per beam. All plans were evaluated in terms of dose to lung and conformity of dose to target of FLASH-enhanced biologically equivalent dose (EQD2). RESULTS: Compared to ABEF, SBPF resulted in a median increase of EQD2mean to healthy lung of 56%, 58%, 55% and 54% in plans with 3, 5, 7 and 9 fractions respectively and of 236%, 78%, 50% and 41% in V100% EQD2, quantifying conformity. This can be compensated for by FERs of at least 1.28, 1.32, 1.30 and 1.23 respectively for EQD2mean and 1.29, 1.18, 1.28 and 1.15 for V100%,EQD2. CONCLUSION: A FLASH effect outweighing the loss of fractionation in SBPF may be achieved in stereotactic lung treatments. The trade-off with fractionation depends on the conditions under which the FLASH effect occurs. Better understanding of the underlying biology and the impact of delivery conditions is needed.

Automated multi-criterial planning with beam angle optimization to establish non-coplanar VMAT class solutions for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Complexity in selecting optimal non-coplanar beam setups and prolonged delivery times may hamper the use of non-coplanar treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Automated multi-criterial planning with integrated beam angle optimization was used to define non-coplanar VMAT class solutions (CSs), each consisting of a coplanar arc and additional 1 or 2 fixed, non-coplanar partial arcs. METHODS: Automated planning was used to generate a coplanar VMAT plan with 5 complementary computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beams (VMAT+5) for each of the 20 included patients. Subsequently, the frequency distribution of the 100 patient-specific non-coplanar IMRT beam directions was used to select non-coplanar arcs for supplementing coplanar VMAT. A second investigated CS with only one non-coplanar arc consisted of coplanar VMAT plus a partial arc at 90° couch angle (VMATCS90). Plans generated with the two VMATCSs were compared to coplanar VMAT. RESULTS: VMAT+5 analysis resulted in VMATCS60: two partial non-coplanar arcs at couch angles 60° and -60° to complement coplanar VMAT. Compared to coplanar VMAT, the non-coplanar VMATCS60 and VMATCS90 yielded substantial average dose reductions in OARs associated with xerostomia and dysphagia, i.e., parotids, submandibular glands, oral cavity and swallowing muscles (p < 0.05) for the same PTV coverage and without violating hard constraints. Impact of non-coplanar treatment and superiority of either VMACS60 and VMATCS90 was highly patient dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to coplanar VMAT, dose to OARs was substantially reduced with a CS with one or two non-coplanar arcs. Preferences for coplanar or one or two additional arcs are highly patient-specific, balancing plan quality and treatment time.

Enhancing Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with iCE, a Novel System for Automated Multi-Criterial Treatment Planning Including Beam Angle Optimization.

In this study, the novel iCE radiotherapy treatment planning system (TPS) for automated multi-criterial planning with integrated beam angle optimization (BAO) was developed, and applied to optimize organ at risk (OAR) sparing and systematically investigate the impact of beam angles on radiotherapy dose in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). iCE consists of an in-house, sophisticated multi-criterial optimizer with integrated BAO, coupled to a broadly used commercial TPS. The in-house optimizer performs fluence map optimization to automatically generate an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan with optimal beam angles for each patient. The obtained angles and dose-volume histograms are then used to automatically generate the final deliverable plan with the commercial TPS. For the majority of 26 LA-NSCLC patients, iCE achieved improved heart and esophagus sparing compared to the manually created clinical plans, with significant reductions in the median heart Dmean (8.1 vs. 9.0 Gy, p = 0.02) and esophagus Dmean (18.5 vs. 20.3 Gy, p = 0.02), and reductions of up to 6.7 Gy and 5.8 Gy for individual patients. iCE was superior to automated planning using manually selected beam angles. Differences in the OAR doses of iCE plans with 6 beams compared to 4 and 8 beams were statistically significant overall, but highly patient-specific. In conclusion, automated planning with integrated BAO can further enhance and individualize radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC.

Evaluation of alternative parameter settings for dose restoration and full plan adaptation in IMPT for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated proton therapy is highly sensitive to anatomical variations. A dose restoration method and a full plan adaptation method have been developed earlier, both requiring several parameter settings. This study evaluates the validity of the previously selected settings by systematically comparing them to alternatives. MATERIALS/METHODS: The dose restoration method takes a prior plan and uses an energy-adaptation followed by a spot-intensity re-optimization to restore the plan to its initial state. The full adaptation method uses an energy-adaptation followed by the addition of new spots and a spot-intensity optimization to fit the new anatomy. We varied: 1) The margins and robustness settings of the prior plan, 2) the spot-addition sample size, i.e. the number of added spots, 3) the spot-addition stopping criterion, and 4) the spot-intensity optimization approach. The last three were evaluated only for the full plan adaptation. Evaluations were done on 88 CT scans of 11 prostate cancer patients. Dose was prescribed as 55 Gy(RBE) to the lymph nodes and seminal vesicles with a boost to 74 Gy(RBE) to the prostate. RESULTS: For the dose restoration method, changing the applied CTV-to-PTV margins and plan robustness in the prior plans yielded insufficient target coverage or increased OAR doses. For the full plan adaptation, more spot-addition iterations and using a different optimization approach resulted in lower OAR doses compared to the default settings while maintaining target coverage. However, the calculation times increased by up to 20 times, making these variations infeasible for online-adaptation. CONCLUSION: We recommend maintaining the default setting for the dose restoration approach. For the full plan adaptation we recommend to focus on fine-tuning the optimization-parameters, and apart from this using the default settings.

MR-Linac Radiotherapy - The Beam Angle Selection Problem.

BACKGROUND: With the large-scale introduction of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), selection of optimal beam angles for coplanar static-beam IMRT has increasingly become obsolete. Due to unavailability of VMAT in current MR-linacs, the problem has re-gained importance. An application for automated IMRT treatment planning with integrated, patient-specific computer-optimization of beam angles (BAO) was used to systematically investigate computer-aided generation of beam angle class solutions (CS) for replacement of computationally expensive patient-specific BAO. Rectal cancer was used as a model case. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 23 patients treated at a Unity MR-linac were included. BAOx plans (x=7-12 beams) were generated for all patients. Analyses of BAO12 plans resulted in CSx class solutions. BAOx plans, CSx plans, and plans with equi-angular setups (EQUIx, x=9-56) were mutually compared. RESULTS: For x>7, plan quality for CSx and BAOx was highly similar, while both were superior to EQUIx. E.g. with CS9, bowel/bladder Dmean reduced by 22% [11%, 38%] compared to EQUI9 (p<0.001). For equal plan quality, the number of EQUI beams had to be doubled compared to BAO and CS. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-generated beam angle CS could replace individualized BAO without loss in plan quality, while reducing planning complexity and calculation times, and resulting in a simpler clinical workflow. CS and BAO largely outperformed equi-angular treatment. With the developed CS, time consuming beam angle re-optimization in daily adaptive MR-linac treatment could be avoided. Further systematic research on computerized development of beam angle class solutions for MR-linac treatment planning is warranted.

On the Importance of Individualized, Non-Coplanar Beam Configurations in Mediastinal Lymphoma Radiotherapy, Optimized With Automated Planning.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Literature is non-conclusive regarding selection of beam configurations in radiotherapy for mediastinal lymphoma (ML) radiotherapy, and published studies are based on manual planning with its inherent limitations. In this study, coplanar and non-coplanar beam configurations were systematically compared, using a large number of automatically generated plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An autoplanning workflow, including beam configuration optimization, was configured for young female ML patients. For each of 25 patients, 24 plans with different beam configurations were generated with autoplanning: 11 coplanar CP_x plans and 11 non-coplanar NCP_x plans with x = 5 to 15 IMRT beams with computer-optimized, patient-specific configurations, and the coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar Butterfly VMAT (B-VMAT) beam angle class solutions (600 plans in total). RESULTS: Autoplans compared favorably with manually generated, clinically delivered plans, ensuring that beam configuration comparisons were performed with high quality plans. There was no beam configuration approach that was best for all patients and all plan parameters. Overall there was a clear tendency towards higher plan quality with non-coplanar configurations (NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT). NCP_x≥12 produced highly conformal plans with on average reduced high doses in lungs and patient and also a reduced heart Dmean, while B-VMAT resulted in reduced low-dose spread in lungs and left breast. CONCLUSIONS: Non-coplanar beam configurations were favorable for young female mediastinal lymphoma patients, with patient-specific and plan-parameter-dependent dosimetric advantages of NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT. Individualization of beam configuration approach, considering also the faster delivery of B-VMAT vs. NCP_x≥12, can importantly improve the treatments.

Fully automated treatment planning for MLC-based robotic radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To propose and validate a fully automated multicriterial treatment planning solution for a CyberKnife® equipped with an InCiseTM 2 multileaf collimator. METHODS: The AUTO BAO plans are generated using fully automated prioritized multicriterial optimization (AUTO MCO) of pencil-beam fluence maps with integrated noncoplanar beam angle optimization (BAO), followed by MLC segment generation. Both the AUTO MCO and segmentation algorithms have been developed in-house. AUTO MCO generates for each patient a single, high-quality Pareto-optimal IMRT plan. The segmentation algorithm then accurately mimics the AUTO MCO 3D dose distribution, while considering all candidate beams simultaneously, rather than replicating the fluence maps. Pencil-beams, segment dose depositions, and final dose calculations are performed with a stand-alone version of the clinical dose calculation engine. For validation, AUTO BAO plans were generated for 33 prostate SBRT patients and compared to reference plans (REF) that were manually generated with the commercial treatment planning system (TPS), in absence of time pressure. REF plans were also compared to AUTO RB plans, for which fluence map optimization was performed for the beam angle configuration used in the REF plan, and the segmentation could use all these beams or only a subset, depending on the dosimetry. RESULTS: AUTO BAO plans were clinically acceptable and dosimetrically similar to REF plans, but had on average reduced numbers of beams ((beams in AUTO BAO)/(beams in REF) (relative improvement): 24.7/48.3 (-49%)), segments (59.5/98.9 (-40%)), and delivery times (17.1/22.3 min. (-23%)). Dosimetry of AUTO RB and REF were also similar, but AUTO RB used on average fewer beams (38.0/48.3 (-21%)) and had on average shorter delivery times (18.6/22.3 min. (-17%)). Delivered Monitor Units (MU) were similar for all three planning approaches. CONCLUSIONS: A new, vendor-independent optimization workflow for fully automated generation of deliverable high-quality CyberKnife® plans was proposed, including BAO. Compared to manual planning with the commercial TPS, fraction delivery times were reduced by 5.3 min. (-23%) due to large reductions in beam and segment numbers.

Complementing Prostate SBRT VMAT With a Two-Beam Non-Coplanar IMRT Class Solution to Enhance Rectum and Bladder Sparing With Minimum Increase in Treatment Time.

PURPOSE: Enhance rectum and bladder sparing in prostate SBRT with minimum increase in treatment time by complementing dual-arc coplanar VMAT with a two-beam non-coplanar IMRT class solution (CS). METHODS: For twenty patients, an optimizer for automated multi-criterial planning with integrated beam angle optimization (BAO) was used to generate dual-arc VMAT plans, supplemented with five non-coplanar IMRT beams with individually optimized orientations (VMAT+5). In all plan generations, reduction of high rectum dose had the highest priority after obtaining adequate PTV coverage. A CS with two most preferred directions in VMAT+5 and largest rectum dose reductions compared to dual-arc VMAT was then selected to define VMAT+CS. VMAT+CS was compared with automatically generated i) dual-arc coplanar VMAT plans (VMAT), ii) VMAT+5 plans, and iii) IMRT plans with 30 patient-specific non-coplanar beam orientations (30-NCP). Plans were generated for a 4 x 9.5 Gy fractionation scheme. Differences in PTV doses, healthy tissue sparing, and computation and treatment delivery times were quantified. RESULTS: For equal PTV coverage, VMAT+CS, consisting of dual-arc VMAT supplemented with two fixed, non-coplanar IMRT beams with fixed Gantry/Couch angles of 65°/30° and 295°/-30°, significantly reduced OAR doses and the dose bath, compared to dual-arc VMAT. Mean relative differences in rectum Dmean, D1cc, V40GyEq and V60GyEq were 19.4 ± 10.6%, 4.2 ± 2.7%, 34.9 ± 20.3%, and 39.7 ± 23.2%, respectively (all p<0.001). There was no difference in bladder D1cc, while bladder Dmean reduced by 17.9 ± 11.0% (p<0.001). Also, the clinically evaluated urethra D5%, D10%, and D50% showed small, but statistically significant improvements. All patient VX with X = 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30 Gy were reduced with VMAT+CS, with a maximum relative reduction for V10Gy of 19.0 ± 7.3% (p<0.001). Total delivery times with VMAT+CS only increased by 1.9 ± 0.7 min compared to VMAT (9.1 ± 0.7 min). The dosimetric quality of VMAT+CS plans was equivalent to VMAT+5, while optimization times were reduced by a factor of 25 due to avoidance of individualized BAO. Compared to VMAT+CS, the 30-NCP plans were only favorable in terms of dose bath, at the cost of much enhanced optimization and delivery times. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed two-beam non-coplanar class solution to complement coplanar dual-arc VMAT resulted in substantial plan quality improvements for OARs (especially rectum) and reduced irradiated patient volumes with minor increases in treatment delivery times.

Pre-clinical validation of a novel system for fully-automated treatment planning.

INTRODUCTION: Many approaches for automated treatment planning (autoplanning) have been proposed and investigated. Autoplanning can enhance plan quality compared to 'manual' trial-and-error planning, and decrease routine planning workload. A few approaches have been implemented in commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs). We performed a pre-clinical validation of a new system ('NovelATP') that is based on fully-automated multi-criterial optimization (MCO). The aim of NovelATP is to automatically generate for each patient a single high-quality, Pareto-optimal plan without manual Pareto navigation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Validation was performed by generating VMAT/IMRT plans for conventional treatment of prostate cancer (101 pts), prostate SBRT (20 pts), bilateral head-and-neck cancer (50 pts) and rectal cancer treated at an MR-Linac (23 pts). NovelATP autoplans were compared to plans that were generated with our in-house autoplanning system. In many previous validation studies, the latter system consistently showed enhanced plan quality when compared to manual planning. RESULTS: Dosimetrical differences between NovelATP and benchmark plans were on average small and presumably not clinically relevant, pointing at high NovelATP dosimetric plan quality. MUs were 11-19% higher with NovelATP. NovelATP delivery times were up to 12% longer. Overall, there was a slight disadvantage for NovelATP regarding gamma analyses. Calculation times for NovelATP plans were between 29  and 151 min with no overall differences with the benchmark plans. CONCLUSION: The new autoplanning system was able to produce high-quality plans for four highly different planning protocols/treatment sites with a total of 194 patients investigated.