Technical note: Dosimetry and FLASH potential of UHDR proton PBS for small lung tumors: Bragg-peak-based delivery versus transmission beam and IMPT.

BACKGROUND: High-energy transmission beams (TBs) are currently the main delivery method for proton pencil beam scanning ultrahigh dose-rate (UHDR) FLASH radiotherapy. TBs place the Bragg-peaks behind the target, outside the patient, making delivery practical and achievement of high dose-rates more likely. However, they lead to higher integral dose compared to conventional intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), in which Bragg-peaks are placed within the tumor. It is hypothesized that, when energy changes are not required and high beam currents are possible, Bragg-peak-based beams can not only achieve more conformal dose distributions than TBs, but also have more FLASH-potential. PURPOSE: This works aims to verify this hypothesis by taking three different Bragg-peak-based delivery techniques and comparing them with TB and IMPT-plans in terms of dosimetry and FLASH-potential for single-fraction lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS: For a peripherally located lung target of various sizes, five different proton plans were made using "matRad" and inhouse-developed algorithms for spot/energy-layer/beam reduction and minimum monitor unit maximization: (1) IMPT-plan, reference for dosimetry, (2) TB-plan, reference for FLASH-amount, (3) pristine Bragg-peak plan (non-depth-modulated Bragg-peaks), (4) Bragg-peak plan using generic ridge filter, and (5) Bragg-peak plan using 3D range-modulated ridge filter. RESULTS: Bragg-peak-based plans are able to achieve sufficient plan quality and high dose-rates. IMPT-plans resulted in lowest OAR-dose and integral dose (also after a FLASH sparing-effect of 30%) compared to both TB-plans and Bragg-peak-based plans. Bragg-peak-based plans vary only slightly between themselves and generally achieve lower integral dose than TB-plans. However, TB-plans nearly always resulted in lower mean lung dose than Bragg-peak-based plans and due to a higher amount of FLASH-dose for TB-plans, this difference increased after including a FLASH sparing-effect. CONCLUSION: This work indicates that there is no benefit in using Bragg-peak-based beams instead of TBs for peripherally located, UHDR stereotactic lung radiotherapy, if lung dose is the priority.

Single Ultra-High Dose Rate Proton Transmission Beam for Whole Breast FLASH-Irradiation: Quantification of FLASH-Dose and Relation with Beam Parameters.

Healthy tissue-sparing effects of FLASH (≥40 Gy/s, ≥4-8 Gy/fraction) radiotherapy (RT) make it potentially useful for whole breast irradiation (WBI), since there is often a lot of normal tissue within the planning target volume (PTV). We investigated WBI plan quality and determined FLASH-dose for various machine settings using ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) proton transmission beams (TBs). While five-fraction WBI is commonplace, a potential FLASH-effect might facilitate shorter treatments, so hypothetical 2- and 1-fraction schedules were also analyzed. Using one tangential 250 MeV TB delivering 5 × 5.7 Gy, 2 × 9.74 Gy or 1 × 14.32 Gy, we evaluated: (1) spots with equal monitor units (MUs) in a uniform square grid with variable spacing; (2) spot MUs optimized with a minimum MU-threshold; and (3) splitting the optimized TB into two sub-beams: one delivering spots above an MU-threshold, i.e., at UHDRs; the other delivering the remaining spots necessary to improve plan quality. Scenarios 1-3 were planned for a test case, and scenario 3 was also planned for three other patients. Dose rates were calculated using the pencil beam scanning dose rate and the sliding-window dose rate. Various machine parameters were considered: minimum spot irradiation time (minST): 2 ms/1 ms/0.5 ms; maximum nozzle current (maxN): 200 nA/400 nA/800 nA; two gantry-current (GC) techniques: energy-layer and spot-based. For the test case (PTV = 819 cc) we found: (1) a 7 mm grid achieved the best balance between plan quality and FLASH-dose for equal-MU spots; (2) near the target boundary, lower-MU spots are necessary for homogeneity but decrease FLASH-dose; (3) the non-split beam achieved >95% FLASH for favorable (not clinically available) machine parameters (SB GC, low minST, high maxN), but <5% for clinically available settings (EB GC, minST = 2 ms, maxN = 200 nA); and (4) splitting gave better plan quality and higher FLASH-dose (~50%) for available settings. The clinical cases achieved ~50% (PTV = 1047 cc) or >95% (PTV = 477/677 cc) FLASH after splitting. A single UHDR-TB for WBI can achieve acceptable plan quality. Current machine parameters limit FLASH-dose, which can be partially overcome using beam-splitting. WBI FLASH-RT is technically feasible.

Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds.

Purpose: Research suggests that in addition to the dose-rate, a dose threshold is also important for the reduction in normal tissue toxicity with similar tumor control after ultrahigh dose-rate radiation therapy (UHDR-RT). In this analysis we aimed to identify factors that might limit the ability to achieve this "FLASH"-effect in a scenario attractive for UHDR-RT (high fractional beam dose, small target, few organs-at-risk): single-fraction 34 Gy lung stereotactic body radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: Clinical volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans and transmission beam (TB) plans were compared for 6 small and 1 large lung lesion. The TB-plan dose-rate was calculated using 4 methods and the FLASH-percentage (percentage of dose delivered at dose-rates ≥40/100 Gy/s and ≥4/8 Gy) was determined for various variables: a minimum spot time (minST) of 0.5/2 ms, maximum nozzle current (maxN) of 200/40 0nA, and 2 gantry current (GC) techniques (energy-layer based, spot-based [SB]). Results: Based on absolute doses 5-beam TB and VMAT-plans are similar, but TB-plans have higher rib, skin, and ipsilateral lung dose than IMPT. Dose-rate calculation methods not considering scanning achieve FLASH-percentages between ∼30% to 80%, while methods considering scanning often achieve <30%. FLASH-percentages increase for lower minST/higher maxN and when using SB GC instead of energy-layer based GC, often approaching the percentage of dose exceeding the dose-threshold. For the small lesions average beam irradiation times (including scanning) varied between 0.06 to 0.31 seconds and total irradiation times between 0.28 to 1.57 seconds, for the large lesion beam times were between 0.16 to 1.47 seconds with total irradiation times of 1.09 to 5.89 seconds. Conclusions: In a theoretically advantageous scenario for FLASH we found that TB-plan dosimetry was similar to that of VMAT, but inferior to that of IMPT, and that decreasing minST or using SB GC increase the estimated amount of FLASH. For the appropriate machine/delivery parameters high enough dose-rates can be achieved regardless of calculation method, meaning that a possible FLASH dose-threshold will likely be the primary limiting factor.

Ultra-High Dose Rate Transmission Beam Proton Therapy for Conventionally Fractionated Head and Neck Cancer: Treatment Planning and Dose Rate Distributions.

Transmission beam (TB) proton therapy (PT) uses single, high energy beams with Bragg-peak behind the target, sharp penumbras and simplified planning/delivery. TB facilitates ultra-high dose-rates (UHDRs, e.g., ≥40 Gy/s), which is a requirement for the FLASH-effect. We investigated (1) plan quality for conventionally-fractionated head-and-neck cancer treatment using spot-scanning proton TBs, intensity-modulated PT (IMPT) and photon volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT); (2) UHDR-metrics. VMAT, 3-field IMPT and 10-field TB-plans, delivering 70/54.25 Gy in 35 fractions to boost/elective volumes, were compared (n = 10 patients). To increase spot peak dose-rates (SPDRs), TB-plans were split into three subplans, with varying spot monitor units and different gantry currents. Average TB-plan organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing was comparable to IMPT: mean oral cavity/body dose were 4.1/2.5 Gy higher (9.3/2.0 Gy lower than VMAT); most other OAR mean doses differed by <2 Gy. Average percentage of dose delivered at UHDRs was 46%/12% for split/non-split TB-plans and mean dose-averaged dose-rate 46/21 Gy/s. Average total beam-on irradiation time was 1.9/3.8 s for split/non-split plans and overall time including scanning 8.9/7.6 s. Conventionally-fractionated proton TB-plans achieved comparable OAR-sparing to IMPT and better than VMAT, with total beam-on irradiation times <10s. If a FLASH-effect can be demonstrated at conventional dose/fraction, this would further improve plan quality and TB-protons would be a suitable delivery system.

Bringing FLASH to the Clinic: Treatment Planning Considerations for Ultrahigh Dose-Rate Proton Beams.

PURPOSE: Preclinical research into ultrahigh dose rate (eg, ≥40 Gy/s) "FLASH"-radiation therapy suggests a decrease in side effects compared with conventional irradiation while maintaining tumor control. When FLASH is delivered using a scanning proton beam, tissue becomes subject to a spatially dependent range of dose rates. This study systematically investigates dose rate distributions and delivery times for proton FLASH plans using stereotactic lung irradiation as the paradigm. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Stereotactic lung radiation therapy FLASH-plans, using 244 MeV scanning proton transmission beams, with the Bragg peak behind the body, were made for 7 patients. Evaluated parameters were dose rate distribution within a beam, overall irradiation time, number of times tissue is irradiated, and quality of the FLASH-plans compared with the clinical volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. RESULTS: Sparing of lungs, thoracic wall, and heart in the FLASH-plans was equal to or better than that in the VMAT-plans. For a spot peak dose rate (SPDR, the dose rate in the middle of the spot) of 100 Gy/s, ∼40% of dose is delivered at FLASH dose rates, and for SPDR = 360 Gy/s this increased to ∼75%. One-hundred percent FLASH dose rate cannot be achieved owing to small contributions from distant spots with lower dose rates. The total irradiation time varied between 300 to 730 ms, and around 85% of the dose-receiving body volume was irradiated by either 1 or 2 beams. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical implementation of FLASH using scanning proton beams requires multiple treatment planning considerations: dosimetric, temporal, and spatial parameters all seem important. The FLASH efficiency of a scanning proton beam increases with SPDR. The methodology proposed in this proof-of-principle study provides a framework for evaluating the FLASH characteristics of scanning proton beam plans and can be adapted as FLASH parameters are better defined. It currently seems logical to optimize plans for the shortest delivery time, maximum amount of high dose rate coverage, and maximum amount of single beam and continuous irradiation.