Anatomically robust proton therapy using multiple planning computed tomography scans for locally advanced prostate cancer

Abstract

Background

Proton therapy (PT) is sensitive towards anatomical changes that may occur during a treatment course. The aim of this study was to investigate if anatomically robust PT (ARPT) plans incorporating patient-specific target motion improved target coverage while still sparing normal tissues, when applied on locally advanced prostate cancer patients where pelvic irradiation is indicated.

Material and methods

A planning computed tomography (CT) scan used for dose calculation and two additional CTs (acquired on different days) were used to make patient-specific targets for the ARPT plans on the eight included patients. The plans were compared to a conventional robust PT plan and a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photon plan, which were derived from the planning CT (pCT). Worst-case robust optimisation was used for all proton plans with a setup uncertainty of 5 mm and a range uncertainty of 3.5%. Target coverage (V95% and D95%) and normal tissue doses (V5–75 Gy) were evaluated on 6–8 rCTs per patient.

Results

The ARPT plans improved the prostate target coverage for the most challenging patient compared to conventional robust PT plans (20% point increase for V95% and 31 Gy increase for D95%). Across the whole cohort the estimated mean value for V95% was 97% for the ARPT plans and 95% for the conventional robust PT plans. The ARPT plans had a slight, statistically insignificant increase in normal tissue doses compared to the conventional robust proton plans. Compared to VMAT, the ARPT plans significantly reduced the normal tissue doses in the low-to-intermediate dose range.

Conclusions

While both proton plans reduced the low-to-intermediate normal tissue doses compared to VMAT, ARPT plans improved the target coverage for the most challenging patient without significantly increasing the normal tissue doses compared to conventional robust PT plans.

Keywords:

• Anatomical robust proton therapy
• treatment planning
• multiple CTs
• prostate cancer
• patient-specific targets

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Bo Martin Bibby for his help in the statistical analysis.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Danish Cancer Society under Grant no. R146-A9308, Aarhus Universitet and Kraeftens Bekaempelse under Grant no. 900505 and Danish Comprehensive Cancer Centre Radiotherapy under Grant no. 9511.