International Journal of Particle Therapy (Nov 2023)

Advancing the Role of Proton Therapy for Spine Metastases Through Diagnostic Scan–Based Planning

  • Cameron W. Swanick, MD,
  • Michael H. Shang, PhD,
  • Kevin Erhart, PhD,
  • Jonathan Cabrera, MS,
  • James Burkavage, CMD,
  • Tomas Dvorak, MD,
  • Naren Ramakrishna, MD, PhD,
  • Zhiqiu Li, PhD,
  • Amish Shah, PhD,
  • Sanford L. Meeks,
  • Omar A. Zeidan, PhD,
  • Patrick Kelly, MD, PhD

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-23-00005.1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 2
pp. 85 – 93

Abstract

Read online

Purpose: Many patients with metastatic cancer live years beyond diagnosis, and there remains a need to improve the therapeutic ratio of metastasis-directed radiation for these patients. This study aimed to assess a process for delivering cost-effective palliative proton therapy to the spine using diagnostic scan–based planning (DSBP) and prefabricated treatment delivery devices. Materials and Methods: We designed and characterized a reusable proton aperture system that adjusts to multiple lengths for spine treatment. Next, we retrospectively identified 10 patients scan treated with thoracic proton therapy who also had a diagnostic computed tomography within 4 months of simulation. We contoured a T6-T9 target volume on both the diagnostic scans (DS) and simulation scans (SS). Using the aperture system, we generated proton plans on the DS using a posterior–anterior beam with no custom range compensator to treat T6-T9 to 8 Gy × 1. Plans were transferred to the SS to compare coverage and normal tissue doses, followed by robustness analysis. Finally, we compared normal tissue doses and costs between proton and photon plans. Results were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Median D95% on the DS plans was 101% (range, 100%–102%) of the prescription dose. Median Dmax was 107% (range, 105%–108%). When transferred to SS, coverage and hot spots remained acceptable for all cases. Heart and esophagus doses did not vary between the DS and SS proton plans (P >.2). Robustness analysis with 5 mm X/Y/Z shifts showed acceptable coverage (D95% > 98%) for all cases. Compared with the proton plans, the mean heart dose was higher for both anterior–posterior/posterior–anterior and volumetric modulated arc therapy plans (P < .01). Cost for proton DSBP was comparable to more commonly used photon regimens. Conclusion: Proton DSBP is technically feasible and robust, with superior sparing of the heart compared with photons. Eliminating simulation and custom devices increases the value of this approach in carefully selected patients.

Keywords