调强质子治疗与质子弧治疗对肺立体定向放疗4D稳健性优化方案相互作用的稳健性比较

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Clinical oncology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2025.103757
W.G. Wei , H. Yu , Q. Xiao , Z.B. Li , J. Li , X.Y. Zhang , Y.C. Wu , T.L. Qin , X.H. Zeng , Y. Song , G.J. Li , S. Bai
{"title":"调强质子治疗与质子弧治疗对肺立体定向放疗4D稳健性优化方案相互作用的稳健性比较","authors":"W.G. Wei ,&nbsp;H. Yu ,&nbsp;Q. Xiao ,&nbsp;Z.B. Li ,&nbsp;J. Li ,&nbsp;X.Y. Zhang ,&nbsp;Y.C. Wu ,&nbsp;T.L. Qin ,&nbsp;X.H. Zeng ,&nbsp;Y. Song ,&nbsp;G.J. Li ,&nbsp;S. Bai","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>To assess the robustness of 4D-optimised IMPT and PAT plans against interplay effects in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with respiratory motion over 10 mm, and to provide insights into the use of proton-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer with significant tumour movement.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Fourteen patients with early-stage NSCLC and tumour motion &gt;10 mm were selected. Three hypofraction regimens were generated using 4D robust optimisation with the IMPT and PAT techniques. The nominal plan qualities for both techniques were compared, and their robustness against setup and range uncertainties was evaluated. 4D dynamic dose and the 4D static dose were generated to calculate <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mi>M</mi><mi>R</mi></msubsup><mrow><mo>(</mo><mo>%</mo><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></math></span> for interplay effects.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>PAT plans demonstrated superior target metrics such as D<sub>95</sub> and D<sub>2</sub>, and offered enhanced protection for organs at risk (OARs), particularly in lung metrics, across multiple fractionation schemes (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). The robustness of target coverage against setup and range uncertainties was better in PAT plans than IMPT, with average pass rates of 97.8% and 95.4%, respectively (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). The interplay effect significantly affected target metrics in single-fraction plans, decreasing with more fractions, while its effect on OAR metrics was minimal. Median values for single-fraction plans were: <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mrow><mi>D</mi><mn>98</mn></mrow><mrow><mi>G</mi><mi>T</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math></span> was -3% for IMPT and -0.7% for PAT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01); <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mrow><mi>D</mi><mn>95</mn></mrow><mrow><mi>G</mi><mi>T</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math></span> was -2.4% for IMPT and -0.6% for PAT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01); <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mrow><mi>D</mi><mn>2</mn></mrow><mrow><mi>G</mi><mi>T</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math></span> was 3.2% for IMPT and 0.9% for PAT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). The interplay effects resulted in median homogeneity index deviations of 9.1% and 2% for the IMPT and PAT plans, respectively (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). Different starting phases affected IMPT more significantly than PAT.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PAT demonstrated greater robustness to interplay effects than IMPT for hypofractionated treatments of early-stage NSCLC, particularly in single-fraction schemes. Additionally, PAT showed good resilience to variations in different starting phases.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 103757"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Robustness of Intensity-modulated Proton Therapy and Proton-arc Therapy Against Interplay Effects of 4D Robust-optimised Plans for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy\",\"authors\":\"W.G. Wei ,&nbsp;H. Yu ,&nbsp;Q. Xiao ,&nbsp;Z.B. Li ,&nbsp;J. Li ,&nbsp;X.Y. Zhang ,&nbsp;Y.C. Wu ,&nbsp;T.L. Qin ,&nbsp;X.H. Zeng ,&nbsp;Y. Song ,&nbsp;G.J. Li ,&nbsp;S. Bai\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103757\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>To assess the robustness of 4D-optimised IMPT and PAT plans against interplay effects in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with respiratory motion over 10 mm, and to provide insights into the use of proton-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer with significant tumour movement.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Fourteen patients with early-stage NSCLC and tumour motion &gt;10 mm were selected. Three hypofraction regimens were generated using 4D robust optimisation with the IMPT and PAT techniques. The nominal plan qualities for both techniques were compared, and their robustness against setup and range uncertainties was evaluated. 4D dynamic dose and the 4D static dose were generated to calculate <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mi>M</mi><mi>R</mi></msubsup><mrow><mo>(</mo><mo>%</mo><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></math></span> for interplay effects.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>PAT plans demonstrated superior target metrics such as D<sub>95</sub> and D<sub>2</sub>, and offered enhanced protection for organs at risk (OARs), particularly in lung metrics, across multiple fractionation schemes (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). The robustness of target coverage against setup and range uncertainties was better in PAT plans than IMPT, with average pass rates of 97.8% and 95.4%, respectively (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). The interplay effect significantly affected target metrics in single-fraction plans, decreasing with more fractions, while its effect on OAR metrics was minimal. Median values for single-fraction plans were: <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mrow><mi>D</mi><mn>98</mn></mrow><mrow><mi>G</mi><mi>T</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math></span> was -3% for IMPT and -0.7% for PAT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01); <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mrow><mi>D</mi><mn>95</mn></mrow><mrow><mi>G</mi><mi>T</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math></span> was -2.4% for IMPT and -0.6% for PAT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01); <span><math><mrow><mo>Δ</mo><msubsup><mi>I</mi><mrow><mi>D</mi><mn>2</mn></mrow><mrow><mi>G</mi><mi>T</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></msubsup></mrow></math></span> was 3.2% for IMPT and 0.9% for PAT (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05). The interplay effects resulted in median homogeneity index deviations of 9.1% and 2% for the IMPT and PAT plans, respectively (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). Different starting phases affected IMPT more significantly than PAT.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PAT demonstrated greater robustness to interplay effects than IMPT for hypofractionated treatments of early-stage NSCLC, particularly in single-fraction schemes. Additionally, PAT showed good resilience to variations in different starting phases.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\"39 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103757\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0936655525000123\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0936655525000123","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估4d优化的IMPT和PAT计划对呼吸运动超过10 mm的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者相互作用的鲁棒性,并为基于质子的立体定向放射治疗(SBRT)治疗有明显肿瘤运动的肺癌提供见解。材料与方法:选择14例早期非小细胞肺癌患者,肿瘤运动bbb10 mm。使用IMPT和PAT技术进行4D稳健优化,生成了三个低分数方案。比较了两种技术的标称计划质量,并评估了它们对设置和范围不确定性的鲁棒性。生成4D动态剂量和4D静态剂量,计算相互作用效应ΔIMR(%)。结果:PAT方案表现出更好的目标指标,如D95和D2,并在多个分步方案中对危险器官(OARs),特别是肺指标提供了增强的保护(p < 0.05)。PAT计划的目标覆盖率对设置和距离不确定性的稳健性优于IMPT,平均通过率分别为97.8%和95.4% (p < 0.01)。在单组分计划中,相互作用效应显著影响目标指标,随着组分的增加而降低,而对桨距指标的影响最小。单分数计划的中位值为:ΔID98GTV IMPT为-3%,PAT为-0.7% (p < 0.01);ΔID95GTV IMPT为-2.4%,PAT为-0.6% (p < 0.01);ΔID2GTV为IMPT的3.2%,PAT的0.9% (p < 0.05)。相互作用导致IMPT和PAT计划的中位均匀性指数偏差分别为9.1%和2% (p < 0.01)。不同的启动阶段对IMPT的影响比PAT更显著。结论:对于早期非小细胞肺癌的低分数治疗,尤其是单分数治疗方案,PAT对相互作用的稳健性比IMPT更强。此外,PAT对不同起始阶段的变化表现出良好的弹性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing the Robustness of Intensity-modulated Proton Therapy and Proton-arc Therapy Against Interplay Effects of 4D Robust-optimised Plans for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

Aims

To assess the robustness of 4D-optimised IMPT and PAT plans against interplay effects in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with respiratory motion over 10 mm, and to provide insights into the use of proton-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer with significant tumour movement.

Materials and methods

Fourteen patients with early-stage NSCLC and tumour motion >10 mm were selected. Three hypofraction regimens were generated using 4D robust optimisation with the IMPT and PAT techniques. The nominal plan qualities for both techniques were compared, and their robustness against setup and range uncertainties was evaluated. 4D dynamic dose and the 4D static dose were generated to calculate ΔIMR(%) for interplay effects.

Results

PAT plans demonstrated superior target metrics such as D95 and D2, and offered enhanced protection for organs at risk (OARs), particularly in lung metrics, across multiple fractionation schemes (p < 0.05). The robustness of target coverage against setup and range uncertainties was better in PAT plans than IMPT, with average pass rates of 97.8% and 95.4%, respectively (p < 0.01). The interplay effect significantly affected target metrics in single-fraction plans, decreasing with more fractions, while its effect on OAR metrics was minimal. Median values for single-fraction plans were: ΔID98GTV was -3% for IMPT and -0.7% for PAT (p < 0.01); ΔID95GTV was -2.4% for IMPT and -0.6% for PAT (p < 0.01); ΔID2GTV was 3.2% for IMPT and 0.9% for PAT (p < 0.05). The interplay effects resulted in median homogeneity index deviations of 9.1% and 2% for the IMPT and PAT plans, respectively (p < 0.01). Different starting phases affected IMPT more significantly than PAT.

Conclusion

PAT demonstrated greater robustness to interplay effects than IMPT for hypofractionated treatments of early-stage NSCLC, particularly in single-fraction schemes. Additionally, PAT showed good resilience to variations in different starting phases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical oncology
Clinical oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
332
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
A Primer for Radiation Oncologists on Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Key Concepts and Principles Trastuzumab in Addition to Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Gastroesophageal Cancer—A Real-World Experience The Role of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Geriatric Patients With Oligometastatic Cancer: A Geriatric Oncology Perspective Accelerated MRI-Guided Brachytherapy in Cervical Cancer Does the Composite Endpoint Overstate Risk After Denosumab Discontinuation?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1