Bone versus soft-tissue setup in proton therapy for patients with oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of patient positioning based on either bone or soft-tissue matching for PT in oesophageal cancer and its impact on plan adaptation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two retrospective patient cohorts treated with radiotherapy were included in the study. Cohort A consisted of 26 consecutive patients with a planning 4DCT scan (CT1) and a surveillance 4DCT scan (CT2) at fraction ten. Cohort B consisted of 17 patients selected based on large anatomical changes identified during treatment resulting in a rescan (CT2). Mean dose to the iCTV (sum of the CTVs in all respiratory phases) was 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions or 41.4 Gy (RBE) in 23 fractions. A nominal pencil beam scanning plan was created using two posterior beams and robust optimization (5 mm setup, 3.5% range). For each patient, two rigid registrations were made between average (avg) CT1 and CT2: a match on the vertebral column (bone match) and a match on the iCTV (soft-tissue match). Robustness towards setup (5 mm) and range (3.5%) errors was evaluated at CT2. Robustness towards respiration was evaluated by recalculation of the plan on all phases of the CT2 scan. Dose coverage <96% would trigger adaptation. The statistical significance (p-value <0.05) between dose coverage for the two registration methods was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: All plans fulfilled V95%iCTV>99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTV>97% for all respiratory phases and robustness scenarios at CT1. In two (8%) and three (18%) patients, V95%iCTV<96% on CT2 for Cohort A and B, respectively when bone match was used. For soft-tissue match, V95%iCTV >96% for all patients. V95%iCTV was significantly higher (p-value = 0.0001) for soft-tissue match than bone match. CONCLUSION: Anatomical changes during the treatment course led to target dose deterioration and a need for plan adaptation when using a bone match.

Treatment planning comparison in the PROTECT-trial randomising proton versus photon beam therapy in oesophageal cancer: Results from eight European centres.

PURPOSE: To compare dose distributions and robustness in treatment plans from eight European centres in preparation for the European randomized phase-III PROTECT-trial investigating the effect of proton therapy (PT) versus photon therapy (XT) for oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All centres optimized one PT and one XT nominal plan using delineated 4DCT scans for four patients receiving 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. Target volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95%iCTVtotal) should be >99%. Robustness towards setup, range, and respiration was evaluated. The plans were recalculated on a surveillance 4DCT (sCT) acquired at fraction ten and robustness evaluation was performed to evaluate the effect of respiration and inter-fractional anatomical changes. RESULTS: All PT and XT plans complied with V95%iCTVtotal >99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTVtotal >97% for all respiratory and robustness scenarios. Lung and heart dose varied considerably between centres for both modalities. The difference in mean lung dose and mean heart dose between each pair of XT and PT plans was in median [range] 4.8 Gy [1.1;7.6] and 8.4 Gy [1.9;24.5], respectively. Patients B and C showed large inter-fractional anatomical changes on sCT. For patient B, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal in the worst-case robustness scenario was 45% and 94% for XT and PT, respectively. For patient C, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was 57% and 72% for XT and PT, respectively. Patient A and D showed minor inter-fractional changes and the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was >85%. CONCLUSION: Large variability in dose to the lungs and heart was observed for both modalities. Inter-fractional anatomical changes led to larger target dose deterioration for XT than PT plans.