Pre-treatment analysis of non-rigid variations can assist robust intensity-modulated proton therapy plan selection for head and neck patients.

PURPOSE: To incorporate small non-rigid variations of head and neck patients into the robust evaluation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for the selection of robust treatment plans.

METHODS

A cohort of 20 nasopharynx cancer patients with weekly kilovoltage CT (kVCT) and 15 oropharynx cancer patients with weekly cone-beam CT (CBCT) were retrospectively included. Anatomical variations between week 0/week 1 of treatment were acquired using deformable image registration (DIR) for all 35 patients and then applied to the planning CT of four patients who have kVCT scanned each week to simulate potential small non-rigid variations (sNRVs). The robust evaluations were conducted on IMPT plans with: (1) different number of beam fields from 3-field to 5-field; (2) different beam angles. The robust evaluation before treatment, including the sNRVs and setup uncertainty, referred to as sNRV+R evaluation was compared with the conventional evaluation (without sNRVs) in terms of robustness consistency with the gold standard evaluation based on weekly CT.

RESULTS

Among four patients (490 scenarios), we observed a maximum difference in the sNRV+R evaluation to the nominal dose of: 9.37% dose degradation on D95 of clinical target volumes (CTVs), increase in mean dose (D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ ) of parotid 11.87 Gy, increase in max dose (D max $_{\text{max}}$ ) of brainstem 20.82 Gy. In contrast, in conventional evaluation, we observed a maximum difference to the nominal dose of: 7.58% dose degradation on D95 of the CTVs, increase in parotid D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ by 4.88 Gy, increase in brainstem D max $_{\text{max}}$ by 13.5 Gy. In the measurement of the robustness ranking consistency with the gold standard evaluation, the sNRV+R evaluation was better or equal to the conventional evaluation in 77% of cases, particularly, better on spinal cord, parotid glands, and low-risk CTV.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the additional dose discrepancy that sNRVs can make. The inclusion of sNRVs can be beneficial to robust evaluation, providing information on clinical uncertainties additional to the conventional rigid isocenter shift.