Main Session
Sep 29
PQA 05 - Physics

3209 - Beam-Splitting and Pseudo-Proton-ARC Planning Methods for Spatially Fractionated Proton Therapy on a Compact Proton System

12:30pm - 01:45pm ET
Poster Hall - Exhibit Hall A
Screen: 25
POSTER

Presenter(s)

Yao Hao, PhD - Washington Univ School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

X. Zhao1, T. R. Mazur1, J. Harms1, N. Knutson1, A. J. Apicelli III1, S. M. Perkins2, and Y. Hao1; 1WashU Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Louis, MO, 2WashU Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Saint Louis, MO

Purpose/Objective(s): In a Phase I clinical trial (NCT05831579), spatially fractionated (GRID) proton therapy was delivered using a collimating brass aperture to achieve a customizable spatial dose distribution, escalating dose to small volumes of bulky tumors. However, use of the brass aperture limits flexibility in high dose placement and the beam arrangement. Two non-brass-aperture proton planning approaches, Beam-Splitting (BS), and Pseudo-Proton-Arc (PPArc), are developed and proposed to improve peak-to-valley-dose-ratio (PVDR) and dose conformality compared to proton GRID therapy using a brass aperture.

Materials/Methods: BS and PPArc lattice plans were created for 9 patients with gross tumor volumes (GTVs) from 259-1231 cc. Dose spheres (PTV_6670) were generated within the GTV via scripting, and planned for 66.7 GyRBE dose in 5 fractions, with 4-12 spheres per patient. The whole PTV was prescribed 20 GyRBE. In BS method, a total of 8 fields were placed, with 4 fields utilizing the integrated adaptive aperture fit directly to PTV_6670, and 4 fields covering the remaining PTV_2000. After final optimization, the PTV_6670 subfields and larger PTV_2000 fields with matching gantry/couch angles are merged. In PPArc method, the same optimization objectives were used, with 2-4 arcs consisting of 12 – 16 beams with 15 degrees spacing.

Results: PTV_2000 V20Gy >= 98% was achieved for all plans. PTV_6670 D95% was found to be 95.5±2.1% and 93.3±1.6% in BS and PPArc methods respectively. Average skin Dmax was 33.9±4.0Gy and 32.4±3.9Gy. GTV PVDR, defined as the ratio of the Dmean of PTV_6670 to that of PTV_Avoid, where PTV_Avoid represents the alternating nearest-neighbor spheres to PTV_6670, was 2.7±0.3 and 2.6±0.2, respectively. Furthermore, the OAR constraints in the Phase I photon lattice clinical trial (NCT04133415) were met in all plans.

Conclusion: Dose coverage objectives were met for all 18 proton lattice plans utilizing the integrated adaptive aperture (AA) only. The semi-automated methods developed in this work achieved high-quality lattice plans with increased flexibility in beam arrangement and plan design. BS has fewer beams and better PVDR comparing to PPArc, but higher MUs needed due to the lateral-dose-fall-off control by using the AA. PPArc has less optimization time and skin dose, but is not yet available for clinical use on this compact proton system.

Treatment Site Beam-Splitting Pseudo-Proton-ARC
PVDR

PTV_2000 V100 (%)

PTV_6670 D95 (%)

Skin Dmax (cGy)

PVDR

PTV_2000 V100 (%)

PTV_6670 D95 (%)

Skin Dmax (cGy)

ChestWall

2.81

99.00

96.72

3614

2.58

99.33

90.28

3525

Lung 1

3.26

98.86

99.55

3309

2.30

99.86

93.51

3447

Lung 2

2.59

98.59

94.41

3034

2.56

99.13

93.66

2590

Renal

2.31

99.28

93.87

3671

2.59

98.91

94.41

3455

Ribs

2.26

98.48

94.78

3543

2.52

98.81

94.26

3549

Pelvis

2.80

99.01

96.13

2342

2.96

98.33

94.47

2483

Buttock

2.74

98.61

96.76

3491

3.02

99.62

94.26

3267

Paraspinal

2.74

98.45

92.94

3707

2.41

98.86

91.36

3524

Abdomen

2.71

98.11

94.44

3648

2.56

99.02

93.97

3288