Three-dimensional MRI-based treatment planning approach for non-invasive ocular proton therapy.

PURPOSE: To develop a high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based treatment planning approach for uveal melanomas (UM) in proton therapy. MATERIALS/METHODS: For eight patients with UM, a segmentation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs-at-risk (OARs) was performed on T1- and T2-weighted 7 Tesla MRI image data to reconstruct the patient MR-eye. An extended contour was defined with a 2.5-mm isotropic margin derived from the GTV. A broad beam algorithm, which we have called πDose, was implemented to calculate relative proton absorbed doses to the ipsilateral OARs. Clinically favorable gazing angles of the treated eye were assessed by calculating a global weighted-sum objective function, which set penalties for OARs and extreme gazing angles. An optimizer, which we have named OPT'im-Eye-Tool, was developed to tune the parameters of the functions for sparing critical-OARs. RESULTS: In total, 441 gazing angles were simulated for every patient. Target coverage including margins was achieved in all the cases (V95%  > 95%). Over the whole gazing angles solutions space, maximum dose (Dmax ) to the optic nerve and the macula, and mean doses (Dmean ) to the lens, the ciliary body and the sclera were calculated. A forward optimization was applied by OPT'im-Eye-Tool in three different prioritizations: iso-weighted, optic nerve prioritized, and macula prioritized. In each, the function values were depicted in a selection tool to select the optimal gazing angle(s). For example, patient 4 had a T2 equatorial tumor. The optimization applied for the straight gazing angle resulted in objective function values of 0.46 (iso-weighted situation), 0.90 (optic nerve prioritization) and 0.08 (macula prioritization) demonstrating the impact of that angle in different clinical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and suitability of a 3D MRI-based treatment planning approach have been successfully tested on a cohort of eight patients diagnosed with UM. Moreover, a gaze-angle trade-off dose optimization with respect to OARs sparing has been developed. Further validation of the whole treatment process is the next step in the goal to achieve both a non-invasive and a personalized proton therapy treatment.

Factors influencing the performance of patient specific quality assurance for pencil beam scanning IMPT fields.

PURPOSE: A detailed analysis of 2728 intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) fields that were clinically delivered to patients between 2007 and 2013 at Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) was performed. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of patient specific dosimetric verifications and to assess possible correlation between the quality assurance (QA) results and specific field metrics. METHODS: Dosimetric verifications were performed for every IMPT field prior to patient treatment. For every field, a steering file was generated containing all the treatment unit information necessary for treatment delivery: beam energy, beam angle, dose, size of air gap, nuclear interaction (NI) correction factor, number of range shifter plates, number of Bragg peaks (BPs) with their position and weight. This information was extracted and correlated to the results of dosimetric verification of each field which was a measurement of two orthogonal profiles using an orthogonal ionization chamber array in a movable water column. RESULTS: The data analysis has shown more than 94% of all verified plans were within defined clinical tolerances. The differences between measured and calculated dose depend critically on the number of BPs, total thickness of all range shifter plates inserted in the beam path, and maximal range. An increase of the dose difference was observed with smaller number of BPs (i.e., smaller tumor) and smaller ranges (i.e., superficial tumors). The results of the verification do not depend, however, on the prescribed dose, NI correction, or the size of the air gap. There is no dependency of the transversal and longitudinal spot position precision on the beam angle. The value of NI correction depends on the number of spots and number of range shifter plates. CONCLUSIONS: The presented study has shown that the verification method used at Centre for Proton Therapy at Paul Scherrer Institute is accurate and reproducible for performing patient specific QA. The results confirmed that the dose discrepancy is dependent on the size and location of the tumor.

Benchmarking of a treatment planning system for spot scanning proton therapy: comparison and analysis of robustness to setup errors of photon IMRT and proton SFUD treatment plans of base of skull meningioma.

PURPOSE: Base of skull meningioma can be treated with both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and spot scanned proton therapy (PT). One of the main benefits of PT is better sparing of organs at risk, but due to the physical and dosimetric characteristics of protons, spot scanned PT can be more sensitive to the uncertainties encountered in the treatment process compared with photon treatment. Therefore, robustness analysis should be part of a comprehensive comparison between these two treatment methods in order to quantify and understand the sensitivity of the treatment techniques to uncertainties. The aim of this work was to benchmark a spot scanning treatment planning system for planning of base of skull meningioma and to compare the created plans and analyze their robustness to setup errors against the IMRT technique. METHODS: Plans were produced for three base of skull meningioma cases: IMRT planned with a commercial TPS [Monaco (Elekta AB, Sweden)]; single field uniform dose (SFUD) spot scanning PT produced with an in-house TPS (PSI-plan); and SFUD spot scanning PT plan created with a commercial TPS [XiO (Elekta AB, Sweden)]. A tool for evaluating robustness to random setup errors was created and, for each plan, both a dosimetric evaluation and a robustness analysis to setup errors were performed. RESULTS: It was possible to create clinically acceptable treatment plans for spot scanning proton therapy of meningioma with a commercially available TPS. However, since each treatment planning system uses different methods, this comparison showed different dosimetric results as well as different sensitivities to setup uncertainties. The results confirmed the necessity of an analysis tool for assessing plan robustness to provide a fair comparison of photon and proton plans. CONCLUSIONS: Robustness analysis is a critical part of plan evaluation when comparing IMRT plans with spot scanned proton therapy plans.