Can particle beam therapy be improved using helium ions? – a planning study focusing on pediatric patients. . ???aop.label???. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1125016

In 2016 and 2017, the 8th and 9th 4D treatment planning workshop took place in Groningen (the Netherlands) and Vienna (Austria), respectively. This annual workshop brings together international experts to discuss research, advances in clinical implementation as well as problems and challenges in 4D treatment planning, mainly in spot scanned proton therapy. In the last two years several aspects like treatment planning, beam delivery, Monte Carlo simulations, motion modeling and monitoring, QA phantoms as well as 4D imaging were thoroughly discussed. This report provides an overview of discussed topics, recent findings and literature review from the last two years. Its main focus is to highlight translation of 4D research into clinical practice and to discuss remaining challenges and pitfalls that still need to be addressed and to be overcome.

A novel breathing phantom was designed for being used in conventional and ion-beam radiotherapy as well as for medical imaging. Accurate dose delivery and patient safety are aimed to be verified for four-dimensional (4D) treatment techniques compensating for breathing-induced tumor motion. The phantom includes anthropomorphic components representing an average human thorax. It consists of real tissue equivalent materials to fulfill the requirements for dosimetric experiments and imaging purposes. The different parts of the torso (lungs, chest wall, and ribs) and the tumor can move independently. Simple regular movements, as well as more advanced patient-specific breathing cycles are feasible while a reproducible setup can be guaranteed. The phantom provides the flexibility to use different types of dosimetric devices and was designed in a way that it is robust, transportable and easy to handle. Tolerance levels and the reliability of the phantom setup were determined in combination with tests on motion accuracy and reproducibility by using infrared optical tracking technology. Different imaging was performed including positron emission tomography imaging, 4D computed tomography as well as real-time in-room imaging. The initial dosimetric benchmarking studies were performed in a photon beam where dose parameters are predictable and the dosimetric procedures well established.

With the increasing use of functional imaging in modern radiotherapy (RT) and the envisaged automated integration of PET into target definition, the need for reliable quantification of PET is growing. Reconstruction algorithms in new PET scanners employ pointspread-function (PSF) based resolution recovery, however, their impact on PET quantification still requires thorough investigation. Patients, material, methods: Measurements were performed on a Siemens PET/CT using an IEC phantom filled with varying activity. Data were reconstructed using the OSEM (Gauss filter) and the PSF TrueX (Gauss and Allpass filter) algorithm with all available products of iterations (i) and subsets (ss). The recovery coeffcient (RC) and threshold defining the real sphere volume were determined for all settings and compared to the clinical standard (4i21ss). PET acquisitions of eight lung patients were reconstructed using all algorithms with 4i21ss. Volume size and tracer uptake were determined with different segmentation methods. Results: The threshold for the TrueX was lower (up to 40%) than for the OSEM. The RC for the different algorithms and filters varied. TrueX was more sensitive to permutations of i and ss and only the RC of the OSEM stabilised with increasing number. For patient scans the difference of the volume and activity between TrueX and OSEM could be reduced by applying an adapted threshold and activity correction. Conclusion: The TrueX algorithm results in excellent diagnostic image quality, however, guidelines for native algorithms have to be extended for PSF based reconstruction methods. For appropriate tumour delineation, for the TrueX a lower threshold than the 42% recommended for the OSEM is necessary. These filter dependent thresholds have to be verified for different scanners prior to using them in multicenter trials.

Anatomical changes in the head-and-neck (H&N) region during the course of treatment can cause deteriorated dose distributions. Different replanning strategies were investigated for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Material and methods. For six H&N patients two repeated computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) (CT₁/MR₁ at week 2 and CT₂/MR₂ at week 4) scans were acquired additionally to the initial planning CT/MR. Organs-at-risk (OARs) and three targets (CTV_70Gy, CTV_63Gy, CTV_56Gy) were delineated on MRs and transferred to respective CT data set. Simultaneously integrated boost plans were created using VMAT (two arcs) and IMPT (four beams). To assess the need of replanning the initial VMAT and IMPT plans were recalculated on repeated CTs. Furthermore, VMAT and IMPT plans were replanned on the repeated CTs. A Demon algorithm was used for deformable registration of the repeated CTs with the initial CT and utilized for dose accumulation. Total dose estimations were performed to compare ART versus standard treatment strategies. Results. Dosimetric evaluation of recalculated plans on CT₁ and CT₂ showed increasing OAR doses for both, VMAT and IMPT. The target coverage of recalculated VMAT plans was considered acceptable in three cases, while for all IMPT plans it dropped. Adaptation of the treatment reduced D_2% for brainstem by 6.7 Gy for VMAT and by 8 Gy for IMPT, for particular patients. These D_2% reductions were reaching 9 Gy and 14 Gy for the spinal cord. ART improved target dose homogeneity, especially for protons, i.e. D_2% decreased by up to 8 Gy while D_98% increased by 1.2 Gy. Conclusion. ART showed benefits for both modalities. However, as IMPT is more conformal, the magnitude of dosimetric changes was more pronounced compared to VMAT. Large anatomic variations had a severe impact on treatment plan quality for both VMAT and IMPT. ART is justified in those cases irrespective of treatment modalities.