Ultra-Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: Passive Scattering versus Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy

Few studies have directly compared passive scattering (PS) to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in the delivery of ultra-hypofractionated proton beams to the localized prostate cancer (PCa). In this preliminary study involving five patients previously treated with CyberKnife, treatment plans were created for PS and IMPT (36.25 CGE in five fractions with two opposing fields) to compare the dosimetric parameters to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OAR: rectum, bladder, femoral heads). Both plans met the acceptance criteria. Significant differences were observed in the minimum and maximum doses to the PTV. The mean dose to the PTV was lower for PS (35.62 ± 0.26 vs. 37.18 ± 0.14; p = 0.002). Target coverage (D98%) was better for IMPT (96.79% vs. 99.10%; p = 0.004). IMPT resulted in significantly lower mean doses to the rectum (16.75 CGE vs. 6.88 CGE; p = 0.004) and bladder (17.69 CGE vs. 5.98 CGE p = 0.002). High dose to the rectum (V36.25 CGE) were lower with PS, but not significantly opposite to high dose to the bladder. No significant differences were observed in mean conformity index values, with a non-significant trend towards higher mean homogeneity index values for PS. Non-significant differences in the gamma index for both fields were observed. These findings suggest that both PS and IMPT ultra-hypofractionated proton therapy for PCa are highly precise, offering good target coverage and sparing of normal tissues and OARs.

Particle therapy using protons or carbon ions for cancer patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED): a retrospective multi-institutional study

Purpose To evaluate the outcomes of particle therapy in cancer patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Materials and methods From April 2001 to March 2013, 19,585 patients were treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) or carbon ion therapy (CIT) at 8 institutions. Of these, 69 patients (0.4%, PBT 46, CIT 22, and PBT + CIT 1) with CIEDs (64 pacemakers, 4 implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and 1 with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator) were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients with CIEDs in this study were treated with the passive scattering type of particle beam therapy. Results Six (13%) of the 47 PBT patients, and none of the 23 CIT patients experienced CIED malfunctions (p = 0.105). Electrical resets (7) and over-sensing (3) occurred transiently in 6 patients. The distance between the edge of the irradiation field and the CIED was not associated with the incidence of malfunctions in 20 patients with lung cancer. A larger field size had a higher event rate but the test to evaluate trends as not statistically significant (p = 0.196). Conclusion Differences in the frequency of occurrence of device malfunctions for patients treated with PBT and patients treated with CIT did not reach statistical significance. The present study can be regarded as a benchmark study about the incidence of malfunctioning of CIED in passive scattering particle beam therapy and can be used as a reference for active scanning particle beam therapy.

Dosimetric Comparison of Passive Scattering and Active Scanning Proton Therapy Techniques Using GATE Simulation

Background: In this study, two proton beam delivery designs, i.e. passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) and pencil beam scanning (PBS), were quantitatively compared in terms of dosimetric indices. The GATE Monte Carlo (MC) particle transport code was used to simulate the proton beam system; and the developed simulation engines were benchmarked with respect to the experimental measurements.Method: A water phantom was used to simulate system energy parameters using a set of depth-dose data in the energy range of 120-235 MeV. To compare the performance of PSPT against PBS, multiple dosimetric parameters including Bragg peak width (BPW50), peak position, range, peak-to-entrance dose ratio, and dose volume histogram have been analyzed under the same conditions. Furthermore, the clinical test cases introduced by AAPM TG-119 were simulated in both beam delivery modes to compare the relevant clinical values obtained from Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) analysis. Results: The parametric comparison in the water phantom between the two techniques revealed that the value of peak-to-entrance dose ratio in PSPT is considerably higher than that from PBS by a factor of 8%. In addition, the BPW50 in PSPT was increased by a factor of 7% compared to the corresponding value obtained from PBS model. TG-119 phantom simulations showed that the difference of PTV mean dose between PBS and PSPT techniques are up to 1.8 % while the difference of max dose to organ at risks (OARs) exceeds 50%. Conclusion: The results demonstrated that the active scanning proton therapy systems was superior in adapting to the target volume, better dose painting, and lower out-of-field dose compared to passive scattering design.

Treatment outcomes of passive scattering proton beam therapy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer

Introduction To investigate the treatment outcomes of passive scattering proton beam therapy using stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for inoperable patients or those who refused surgery for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods From January 2016 to December 2019, we retrospectively analyzed 42 patients with stage I NSCLC treated with proton beam therapy. The initially intended dose regimen was 60 cobalt Gray equivalents (CGE) in 4 fractions; however, sequentially modified dose regimens were used when the dose-volume constraints could not be met. The median total dose was 50 CGE (range 50–70 CGE), while the corresponding median biologically effective dose using $$\alpha{/}\beta$$ α / β = 10 (BED10) was 112.5 CGE (range 96–150 CGE). Results The median follow-up time was 40 months (interquartile range 32–48 months). Among the 42 treated patients, 33 had pathologically proven cancers of which most were adenocarcinoma (n = 21, 64%). The 3-year overall survival rate was 71.8%. The estimated rates of local control and progression free survival at 3 years were 91.5% and 66.9%, respectively. Thirteen patients experienced disease progression consisting of three local, six regional, and nine distant failures. No grade 4 or 5 toxicities were observed. Conclusion Passive scattering proton beam therapy for stage I NSCLC using SABR or hypofractionated RT was safe and showed high LC rates.

Adaptive planning based on single beam optimization in passive scattering carbon ion radiotherapy for patients with pancreatic cancer

Background Daily anatomical deviations may distort the dose distribution in carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT), which may cause treatment failure. Therefore, this study aimed to perform re-planning to maintain the dose coverage in patients with pancreatic cancer with passive scattering CIRT. Methods Eight patients with pancreatic cancer and 95 daily computed tomography (CT) sets were examined. Two types of adaptive plans based on new range compensators (RCs) (AP-1) and initial RCs (AP-2) were generated. In AP-2, each beam was optimized by manually adjusting the range shifter thickness and spread-out Bragg peak size to make dose reduction by < 3% of the original plan. Doses of the original plan with bone matching (BM) and tumor matching (TM) were examined for comparison. We calculated the accumulated dose using the contour and intensity-based deformable image registration algorithm. The dosimetric differences in respect to the original plan were compared between methods. Results Using TM and BM, mean ± standard deviations of daily CTV V95 (%) difference from the original plan was − 5.1 ± 6.2 and − 8.8 ± 8.8, respectively, but 1.2 ± 3.4 in AP-1 and − 0.5 ± 2.1 in AP-2 (P < 0.001). AP-1 and AP-2 enabled to maintain a satisfactory accumulated dose in all patients. The dose difference was 1.2 ± 2.8, − 2,1 ± 1.7, − 7.1 ± 5.2, and − 16.5 ± 15.0 for AP-1, AP-2, TM, and BM, respectively. However, AP-2 caused a dose increase in the duodenum, especially in the left–right beam. Conclusions The possible dose deterioration should be considered when performing the BM, even TM. Re-planning based on single beam optimization in passive scattering CIRT seems an effective and safe method of ensuring the treatment robustness in pancreatic cancer. Further study is necessary to spare healthy tissues, especially the duodenum.