A planning target volume (PTV) in photon treatments aims to ensure that the clinical target volume (CTV) receives adequate dose despite treatment uncertainties. The underlying static dose cloud approximation (the assumption that the dose distribution is invariant to errors) is problematic in intensity modulated proton treatments where range errors should be taken into account as well. The purpose of this work is to introduce a robustness evaluation method that is applicable to photon and proton treatments and is consistent with (historic) PTV-based treatment plan evaluations. The limitation of the static dose cloud approximation was solved in a multi-scenario simulation by explicitly calculating doses for various treatment scenarios that describe possible errors in the treatment course. Setup errors were the same as the CTV-PTV margin and the underlying theory of 3D probability density distributions was extended to 4D to include range errors, maintaining a 90% confidence level. Scenario dose distributions were reduced to voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose distributions; the first to evaluate CTV coverage and the second for hot spots. Acceptance criteria for CTV D98 and D2 were calibrated against PTV-based criteria from historic photon treatment plans. CTV D98 in worst case scenario dose and voxel-wise minimum dose showed a very strong correlation with scenario average D98 (R2 > 0.99). The voxel-wise minimum dose visualised CTV dose conformity and coverage in 3D in agreement with PTV-based evaluation in photon therapy. Criteria for CTV D98 and D2 of the voxel-wise minimum and maximum dose showed very strong correlations to PTV D98 and D2 (R2 > 0.99) and on average needed corrections of -0.9% and +2.3%, respectively. A practical approach to robustness evaluation was provided and clinically implemented for PTV-less photon and proton treatment planning, consistent with PTV evaluations but without its static dose cloud approximation.

Background. Predictive models for swallowing dysfunction were developed previously and showed the potential of improved intensity-modulated radiotherapy to reduce the risk of swallowing dysfunction. Still the risk is high. The aim of this study was to determine the potential of swallowing-sparing (SW) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) for reducing the risk of swallowing dysfunction relative to currently used photon therapy. Material and methods. Twenty-five patients with oropharyngeal (n = 21) and hypopharyngeal (n = 4) cancer received primary radiotherapy, including bilateral neck irradiation, using standard (ST) intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT). Prophylactic (54 Gy) and therapeutic (70 Gy) target volumes were defined. The dose to the parotid and submandibular glands was reduced as much as possible. Four additional radiotherapy plans were created for each patient: SW-IMRT, ST-IMPT, 3-beam SW-IMPT (3B-SW-IMPT) and 7-beam SW-IMPT (7B-SW-IMPT). All plans were optimized similarly, with additional attempts to spare the swallowing organs at risk (SWOARs) in the SW plans. Probabilities of swallowing dysfunction were calculated with recently developed predictive models. Results. All plans complied with standard HNC radiotherapy objectives. The mean parotid gland doses were similar for the ST and SW photon plans, but clearly lower in all IMPT plans (ipsilateral parotid gland ST-IMRT: 46 Gy, 7B-SW-IMPT: 29 Gy). The mean dose in the SWOARs was lowest with SW-IMPT, in particular with 7B-SW-IMPT (supraglottic larynx ST-IMRT: 60 Gy, 7B-SW-IMPT: 40 Gy). The observed dose reductions to the SWOARs translated into substantial overall reductions in normal tissue complication risks for different swallowing dysfunction endpoints. Compared with ST-IMRT, the risk of physician-rated grade 2–4 swallowing dysfunction was reduced on average by 8.8% (95% CI 6.5–11.1%) with SW-IMRT, and by 17.2% (95% CI: 12.7–21.7%) with 7B-SW-IMPT. Conclusion. SWOAR-sparing with proton therapy has the potential to substantially reduce the risk of swallowing dysfunction compared to similar treatment with photons.

Background: Compared to static beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), the main advantage of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a shortened delivery time, which leads to improved patient comfort and possibly smaller intra-fraction movements. This study aims at a treatment planner-independent comparison of radiotherapy treatment planning of IMRT and VMAT for head-and-neck cancer performed by several institutes and based on the same CT- and contouring data. Methods: Five institutes generated IMRT and VMAT plans for five oropharyngeal cancer patients using either Pinnacle³ or Oncentra Masterplan to be delivered on Elekta linear accelerators. Results: Comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans within the same patient and institute showed significantly better sparing for almost all OARs with VMAT. The average mean dose to the parotid glands and oral cavity was reduced from 27.2 Gy and 39.4 Gy for IMRT to 25.0 Gy and 36.7 Gy for VMAT, respectively. The dose conformity at 95% of the prescribed dose for PTV_boost and PTV_total was 1.45 and 1.62 for IMRT and 1.37 and 1.50 for VMAT, respectively. The average effective delivery time was reduced from 13:15 min for IMRT to 5:54 min for VMAT. Conclusions: Independently of institution-specific optimization strategies, the quality of the VMAT plans including double arcs was superior to step-and-shoot IMRT plans including 5–9 beam ports, while the effective treatment delivery time was shortened by ~50% with VMAT.

To demonstrate that novice dosimetry planners efficiently create clinically acceptable IMRT plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using a commercially available multicriteria optimization (MCO) system. Twenty HNC patients were enrolled in this in-silico comparative planning study. Per patient, novice planners with less experience in dosimetry planning created an IMRT plan using an MCO system (RayStation). Furthermore, a conventionally planned clinical IMRT plan was available (Pinnacle3). All conventional IMRT and MCO-plans were blind-rated by two expert radiation-oncologists in HNC, using a 5-point scale (1–5 with 5 the highest score) assessment form comprising 10 questions. Additionally, plan quality was reported in terms of planning time, dosimetric and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) comparisons. Inter-rater reliability was derived using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). In total, the radiation-oncologists rated 800 items on plan quality. The overall plan score indicated no differences between both planning techniques (conventional IMRT: 3.8 ± 1.2 vs. MCO: 3.6 ± 1.1, p = 0.29). The inter-rater reliability of all ratings was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.57–0.71), indicating substantial agreement between the radiation-oncologists. In 93% of cases, the scoring difference of the conventional IMRT and MCO-plans was one point or less. Furthermore, MCO-plans led to slightly higher dose uniformity in the therapeutic planning target volume, to a lower integral body dose (13.9 ± 4.5 Gy vs. 12.9 ± 4.0 Gy, p < 0.001), and to reduced dose to the contra-lateral parotid gland (28.1 ± 11.8 Gy vs. 23.0 ± 11.2 Gy, p < 0.002). Consequently, NTCP estimates for xerostomia reduced by 8.4 ± 7.4% (p < 0.003). The hands-on time of the conventional IMRT planning was approximately 205 min. The time to create an MCO-plan was on average 43 ± 12 min. MCO planning enables novice treatment planners to create high quality IMRT plans for HNC patients. Plans were created with vastly reduced planning times, requiring less resources and a short learning curve.