BMC Cancer (Oct 2024)
Effect of breathing phase number on the 4D robust optimization for pancreatic cancer intensity modulated proton therapy
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Respiratory movement, as one of the main challenges in proton therapy for pancreatic cancer patients, could not only lead to harm to normal tissues but also lead to failure of the tumor control, resulting in irreversible consequences. Including respiratory movements into the plan optimization, i.e. 4D robust optimization, may mitigate the interplay effect. However, 4D robust optimization considering images of all breathing phases is time-consuming and less efficient. This work aims to investigate the effect of the breathing phase number on the 4D robust optimization for pancreatic cancer intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) by examining plan quality and computational efficiency. Methods A total of 15 pancreatic cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed. In this study, both anterior-fields and posterior-fields plans were created for each patient. For each plan, six four-dimensional (4D) robust treatment planning strategies with different numbers of respiratory phases and one three-dimensional (3D) treatment plan were created. Optimization of the plans were performed on all ten phases (10phase plan), two extreme phases (2phase plan), two extreme phases plus an intermediate state (3phase plan), two extreme phases plus the 3D CT (3Aphase plan), six phases during the exhalation stage (6Exphase plan), six phases during the inhalation stage (6Inphase plan) and 3D Computed Tomography (CT) scan image (3D plan), respectively. 4D dynamic dose (4DDD) was then calculated to access the interplay effect by considering respiratory motion and dynamic beam delivery. Plan quality and dosimetric parameters for the target and organs at risk (OARs) were then analyzed. Results Compared to the 4D plans, 3D plan performed terribly in terms of target coverage and organs at risk. Target dose in anterior-fields plan varied slightly among all six 4D treatment planning strategies. Both the 6Exphase and 6Inphase plans demonstrated performance that was comparable to the 10phase plan in target coverage, outperforming the other five plans for anterior-fields plan. It’s basically the same for the posterior-fields plan. The six strategies showed similar OARs sparing effect for both anterior-fields and posterior-fields plan. Compared with the 10phase plan, the average decline rates of the optimization time of the six plans of 2phase, 3phase, 3Aphase, 6Exphase, 6Inphase, and 3D were 73.26 ± 6.54% vs. 74.48 ± 6.63%, 65.80 ± 7.89% vs. 65.81 ± 9.58%, 54.67 ± 11.52% vs. 65.75 ± 9.58%, 42.14 ± 13.57% vs. 39.63 ± 16.93%, 37.72 ± 11.70% vs. 40.79 ± 13.62% and 75.52 ± 8.21% vs. 80.67 ± 5.62%, respectively (anterior vs. posterior). With the decrease of the number of phases selected for optimization, the decline rates increased, while the other dosimetry parameters generally showed a deterioration trend. Conclusion In this study, a comprehensive evaluation of six 4D robust treatment planning strategies and one 3D treatment planning strategy for pancreatic cancer patients receiving IMPT was performed. The results showed that six 4D robust optimization strategies were comparable in common posterior field therapy. 2phase and 3phase (including 3Aphase) treatment planning strategies could replace the 10phase treatment planning strategy. It should be noted that patients with large motion amplitudes should receive special attention. The dosimetric performance of the 6Exphase and 6Inphase plans closely aligned with that of the 10phase plan in anterior fields. These plans offered a feasible alternative to 10phase treatment planning strategy by reducing optimization time while maintaining dose coverage of the target and protection of OARs. This research provides guidelines to reduce optimization time and improve clinical efficiency for pancreatic cancer IMPT.
Keywords
