Impact of intrafraction prostate motion on clinical target coverage in proton therapy: A simulation study of dosimetric differences in two delivery techniques. Issue 10 (3rd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Su, Zhong; Slopsema, Roelf; Flampouri, Stella; Li, Zuofeng
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 20:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 67
• Page End: 73
• Publication Date: 2019-09-03
• Subjects: double scattering -- interplay effect -- intrafraction motion -- prostate -- proton therapy -- uniform scanning; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12714
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric impact of prostate intrafraction motion on proton double‐scattering (DS) and uniform scanning (US) treatments using electromagnetic transponder‐based prostate tracking data in simulated treatment deliveries. Methods: In proton DS delivery, the spread‐out Bragg peak (SOBP) is created almost instantaneously by the constant rotation of the range modulator. US, however, delivers each entire energy layer of the SOBP sequentially from distal to proximal direction in time, which can interplay with prostate intrafraction motion. This spatiotemporal interplay during proton treatment was simulated to evaluate its dosimetric impact. Prostate clinical target volume (CTV) dose was obtained by moving CTV through dose matrices of the energy layers according to prostate‐motion traces. Fourteen prostate intrafraction motion traces of each of 17 prostate patients were used in the simulated treatment deliveries. Both single fraction dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) and fraction‐cumulative DVHs were obtained for both 2 Gy per fraction and 7.25 Gy per fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Results: The simulation results indicated that CTV dose degradation depends on the magnitude and direction of prostate intrafraction motion and is patient specific. For some individual fractions, prescription dose coverage decreased in both US and DS treatments, and hot and cold spots inside the CTV were observed in the US results. However, fraction‐cumulative CTV dose coverage showed much reduced dose degradation for both DS and US treatments for both 2 Gy per fraction and SBRT simulations. Conclusions: This study indicated that CTV dose inhomogeneity may exist for some patients with severe prostate intrafraction motion during US treatments. However, there are no statistically significant dose differences between DS and US treatment simulations. Cumulative dose of multiple‐fractions significantly reduced dose uncertainties.