Efficient proton arc optimization and delivery through energy layer pre-selection and post-filtering.

BACKGROUND: Proton arc therapy (PAT) has emerged as a promising approach for improving dose distribution, but also enabling simpler and faster treatment delivery in comparison to conventional proton treatments. However, the delivery speed achievable in proton arc relies on dedicated algorithms, which currently do not generate plans with a clear speed-up and sometimes even result in increased delivery time. PURPOSE: This study aims to address the challenge of minimizing delivery time through a hybrid method combining a fast geometry-based energy layer (EL) pre-selection with a dose-based EL filtering, and comparing its performance to a baseline approach without filtering. METHODS: Three methods of EL filtering were developed: unrestricted, switch-up (SU), and switch-up gap (SU gap) filtering. The unrestricted method filters the lowest weighted EL while the SU gap filtering removes the EL around a new SU to minimize the gantry rotation braking. The SU filtering removes the lowest weighted group of EL that includes a SU. These filters were combined with the RayStation dynamic proton arc optimization framework energy layer selection and spot assignment (ELSA). Four bilateral oropharyngeal and four lung cancer patients' data were used for evaluation. Objective function values, target coverage robustness, organ-at-risk doses and normal tissue complication probability evaluations, as well as comparisons to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans, were used to assess plan quality. RESULTS: The SU gap filtering algorithm performed best in five out of the eight cases, maintaining plan quality within tolerance while reducing beam delivery time, in particular for the oropharyngeal cohort. It achieved up to approximately 22% and 15% reduction in delivery time for oropharyngeal and lung treatment sites, respectively. The unrestricted filtering algorithm followed closely. In contrast, the SU filtering showed limited improvement, suppressing one or two SU without substantial delivery time shortening. Robust target coverage was kept within 1% of variation compared to the PAT baseline plan while organs-at-risk doses slightly decreased or kept about the same for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights to accelerate PAT delivery without compromising plan quality. These advancements could enhance treatment efficiency and patient throughput.

The proton arc therapy treatment planning problem is NP-Hard.

Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an advanced radiotherapy technique using charged particles in which the radiation device rotates continuously around the patient while irradiating the tumor. Compared to conventional, fixed-angle beam delivery mode, proton arc therapy has the potential to further improve the quality of cancer treatment by delivering accurate radiation dose to tumors while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissues. However, the computational complexity of treatment planning in PAT raises challenges as to its effective implementation. In this paper, we demonstrate that designing a PAT plan through algorithmic methods is a NP-hard problem (in fact, NP-complete), where the problem size is determined by the number of discrete irradiation angles from which the radiation can be delivered. This finding highlights the inherent complexity of PAT treatment planning and emphasizes the need for efficient algorithms and heuristics to address the challenges associated with optimizing the delivery of radiation doses in this context.

Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities.

BACKGROUND: Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times. PURPOSE: To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course. METHODS: For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia. RESULTS: The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2). CONCLUSIONS: Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.

Fast robust optimization of proton PBS arc therapy plans using early energy layer selection and spot assignment.

Objective.Proton pencil-beam scanning arcs (PBS arcs) have gained much attention during the past years, due to its potential for increased clinical benefit compared to conventional proton therapy. Previous studies on PBS arcs have primarily been focused on plan quality, and lately efforts have been made to reduce the delivery time. However, the methods presented so far suffer from slow optimization processes.Approach.We present a new method for fast robust optimization of PBS arc plans. The new method assigns a single energy layer per discretized direction prior to spot weight optimization and reduces the number of initial spots considerably compared to conventional methods. We used the new method for three prostate cancer patients with a prescribed dose to the CTV of 77 GyRBEin 35 fractions. For each of the patients, four plans were created: 2-beam IMPT (2IMPT), 1-beam PBS arc (1Arc), 1-beam PBS arc without focus on reducing upward energy jumps (1Arc_unseq) and two-beam PBS arc (2Arc).Main results.All PBS arc plans show a reduced integral dose compared to their respective 2IMPT plans. In the nominal case, the average CTV D98 and D2 metrics over the three patients were best for the 2Arc, followed by 2IMPT (D98¯/D2¯:7523/7986 cGyRBE(2IMPT), 7478/7984 cGy (1Arc), 7486/7951 cGy (1Arc_unseq), 7531/7951 cGyRBE(2Arc)). The average robust target coverage in terms of V95 of the voxelwise minimum dose distribution (evaluated over 42 scenarios) was: 98.0% (2IMPT), 88.6% (1Arc), 92.5% (1Arc_unseq), 97.3% (2Arc). The optimization time, including spot selection and spot dose computation, is longest for the 2Arc plan, but is below 6 min for all patients. The maximum estimated delivery time for all types of arc plans is just above 5 minSignificance.The ability for efficient treatment planning constitutes an important step towards clinical introduction of proton PBS arcs.