SU‐E‐T‐182: Feasibility of Dose Painting by Numbers in Proton Therapy with Contour‐Driven Plan Optimization

• Published in: Medical physics (Lancaster) 2014-06, Vol.41 (6Part14), p.264-264
• Main Authors: Montero, A Barragan, Differding, S, Lee, J, Sterpin, E
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; Cancer; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CT-GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY; HEAD; Intensity modulated radiation therapy; Medical image quality; NECK; NEOPLASMS; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENTS; Proton therapy; Protons; RADIATION DOSES; RECOMMENDATIONS
• ISSN: 0094-2405; 2473-4209
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4888512

Purpose: The work aims to 1) prove the feasibility of dose painting by numbers (DPBN) in proton therapy with usual contour‐driven plan optimization and 2) compare the achieved plan quality to that of rotational IMRT. Methods: For two patients with head and neck cancers, voxel‐by‐voxel prescription to the target volume (PTV‐PET) was calculated from 1 8 FDG‐PET images and converted to contour‐based prescription by defining several sub‐contours. Treatments were planned with RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) and proton pencil beam scanning modality. In order to determine the optimal plan parameters to approach the DPBN prescription, the effect of the number of fields, number of sub‐contours and use of range shifter were tested separately on each patient. The number of sub‐contours were increased from 3 to 11 while the number of fields were set to 3, 5, 7 and 9. Treatment plans were also optimized on two rotational IMRT systems (TomoTherapy and Varian RapidArc) using previously published guidelines. Results: For both patients, more than 99% of the PTV‐PET received at least 95% of the prescribed dose while less than 1% of the PTV‐PET received more than 105%, which demonstrates the feasibility of the treatment. Neither the use of a range shifter nor the increase of the number of fields had a significant influence on PTV coverage. Plan quality increased when increasing number of fields up to 7 or 9 and slightly decreased for a bigger number of sub‐contours. Good OAR sparing is achieved while keeping high plan quality. Finally, proton therapy achieved significantly better plan quality than rotational IMRT. Conclusion: Voxel‐by‐voxel prescriptions can be approximated accurately in proton therapy using a contour‐driven optimization. Target coverage is nearly insensitive to the number of fields and the use of a range shifter. Finally, plan quality assessment confirmed the superiority of proton therapy compared to rotational IMRT.