Program Information
A Novel 4D Robust Optimization Mitigates Interplay Effect in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer
W Liu1*, S Schild2 , J Chang3 , Z Liao4 , Z Wen5 , J Shen6 , J Stoker7 , W Wong8 , N Sahoo9 , M Herman10 , R Mohan11 , M Bues12 , (1) Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, (2) Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, (3) MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, (4) MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, (5) MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (6) Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, (7) Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, (8) Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, (9) MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (10) Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, (11) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (12) Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
Presentations
SU-F-BRD-1 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Ballroom D
Purpose:To compare the impact of interplay effect on 3D and 4D robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans to treat lung cancer.
Methods:Two IMPT plans were created for 11 non-small-cell-lung-cancer cases with 6-14 mm spots. 3D robust optimization generated plans on average CTs with the internal gross tumor volume density overridden to deliver 66 CGyE in 33 fractions to the internal target volume (ITV). 4D robust optimization generated plans on 4D CTs with the delivery of prescribed dose to the clinical target volume (CTV). In 4D optimization, the CTV of individual 4D CT phases received non-uniform doses to achieve a uniform cumulative dose. Dose evaluation software was developed to model time-dependent spot delivery to incorporate interplay effect with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. Patient anatomy voxels were mapped from phase to phase via deformable image registration to score doses. Indices from dose-volume histograms were used to compare target coverage, dose homogeneity, and normal-tissue sparing. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon test.
Results:Given the presence of interplay effect, 4D robust optimization produced IMPT plans with better target coverage and homogeneity, but slightly worse normal tissue sparing compared to 3D robust optimization (unit: Gy) [D95% ITV: 63.5 vs 62.0 (p=0.014), D5% - D95% ITV: 6.2 vs 7.3 (p=0.37), D1% spinal cord: 29.0 vs 29.5 (p=0.52), Dmean total lung: 14.8 vs 14.5 (p=0.12), D33% esophagus: 33.6 vs 33.1 (p=0.28)]. The improvement of target coverage (D95%,4D – D95%,3D) was related to the ratio RMA3/(TVx10-4), with RMA and TV being respiratory motion amplitude (RMA) and tumor volume (TV), respectively. Peak benefit was observed at ratios between 2 and 10. This corresponds to 125 – 625 cm3 TV with 0.5-cm RMA.
Conclusion:4D optimization produced more interplay-effect-resistant plans compared to 3D optimization. It is most effective when respiratory motion is modest compared to TV.
Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: NIH/NCI K25CA168984 Eagles Cancer Research Career Development The Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research Mayo ASU Seed Grant The Kemper Marley Foundation
Contact Email: