ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: In intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), Bragg peaks result in steep distal dose fall-offs, while the lateral IMPT dose fall-off is often less steep than in photon therapy. High-energy pristine transmission ('shoot through') pencil beams have no Bragg peak in the patient, but show a sharp lateral penumbra at the target level. We investigated whether combining Bragg peaks with Transmission pencil beams ('IMPT&TPB') could improve head-and-neck plans by exploiting the steep lateral dose fall-off of transmission pencil beams. APPROACH: Our system for automated multi-criteria IMPT plan optimisation was extended for combined optimisation of BPs and TPBs. The system generates for each patient a Pareto-optimal plan using a generic 'wish-list' with prioritised planning objectives and hard constraints. For eight nasopharynx cancer patients (NPC) and eight oropharynx cancer (OPC) patients, the IMPT&TPB plan was compared to the competing conventional IMPT plan with only Bragg peaks, which was generated with the same optimiser, but without transmission pencil beams. MAIN RESULTS: Clinical OAR and target constraints were met in all plans. By allowing transmission pencil beams in the optimisation, on average 14 of the 25 investigated OAR plan parameters significantly improved for NPC, and 9 of the 17 for OPC, while only one OPC parameter showed small but significant deterioration. Non-significant differences were found in the remaining parameters. In NPC, cochlea Dmean reduced by up to 17.5 Gy and optic nerve D2% by up to 11.1 Gy. CONCLUSION: Compared to IMPT, IMPT&TPB resulted in comparable target coverage with overall superior OAR sparing, the latter originating from steeper dose fall-offs close to OARs.
ABSTRACT
Objective.Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is an emerging treatment modality for cancer. However, treatment planning for IMPT is labour-intensive and time-consuming. We have developed a novel approach for multi-criteria optimisation (MCO) of robust IMPT plans (SISS-MCO) that is fully automated and fast, and we compare it for head and neck, cervix, and prostate tumours to a previously published method for automated robust MCO (IPBR-MCO, van de Water 2013).Approach.In both auto-planning approaches, the applied automated MCO of spot weights was performed with wish-list driven prioritised optimisation (Breedveld 2012). In SISS-MCO, spot weight MCO was applied once for every patient after sparsity-induced spot selection (SISS) for pre-selection of the most relevant spots from a large input set of candidate spots. IPBR-MCO had several iterations of spot re-sampling, each followed by MCO of the weights of the current spots.Main results.Compared to the published IPBR-MCO, the novel SISS-MCO resulted in similar or slightly superior plan quality. Optimisation times were reduced by a factor of 6 i.e. from 287 to 47 min. Numbers of spots and energy layers in the final plans were similar.Significance.The novel SISS-MCO automatically generated high-quality robust IMPT plans. Compared to a published algorithm for automated robust IMPT planning, optimisation times were reduced on average by a factor of 6. Moreover, SISS-MCO is a large scale approach; this enables optimisation of more complex wish-lists, and novel research opportunities in proton therapy.
Subject(s)
Cephalosporins , Head and Neck Neoplasms , Proton Therapy , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated , Male , Female , Humans , Protons , Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods , Head and Neck Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Proton Therapy/methods , Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods , Radiotherapy DosageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the interactional exchange with their patients, psychotherapists continuously assess the applicability of therapeutic interventions and how to linguistically shape these. Therapists choose on the spot which tools to use for the treatment of the patient. AIM: To answer the questions which interactional techniques psychotherapists apply, how these constitute towards the joint construction of meaning and what their consequences are for the role of the therapist. METHOD: We used the method of conversation analysis in order to investigate the therapist’s actions and practices of speaking in a systematic manner. RESULTS: In our analyses, we identified different types of techniques such as mirroring, reformulating, completion proffers and silences. These techniques varied in their openness, directiveness and in the degree to which they were transformative. CONCLUSION: The spectrum of therapeutic interventions ranges from open and less transformative towards more directive and transformative practices of speaking. During the different interactional phases, therapists strategically vary in the application of these types of interventions and therefore also in their role as interlocutor.
