Search

Background and purpose: IMPT faces challenges in lung cancer treatment, like maintaining plan robustness for moving tumors against setup, range errors, and interplay effects. Proton Arc Therapy (PAT) is an alternative to maintain target coverage, potentially improving organ at risk (OAR) sparing, reducing beam delivery time (BDT), and enhancing patient experience. We aim to perform a systematic plan comparison study between IMPT and ELSA-PAT to assess its potential for lung cancer treatment. Material and Methods: 14 Lung ELSA-PAT plans were compared retrospectively with IMPT plans. 4D worst-case minimax robust optimization was performed, including 84 scenarios (3%,3 mm). Dosimetry assessment included target (CTV) and important OARs, on nominal and worst-case scenarios. Most relevant normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP), target coverage robustness against interplay effect and beam delivery time (BDT) were evaluated. Results: CTV D95% and D98% showed no significant difference in comparison. PAT demonstrated better conformality by 66% (p = 0.00012) but delivered a higher heart mean dose (HMD,23%). There was a 2% increase in NTCP 2-year mortality risk with PAT. Total BDT was comparable among techniques. IMPT was more robust than PAT against interplay effect, considering both D1% (1,0 $\pm$ 0.8 Gy vs 1.1 $\pm$ 1.4 Gy) and D98% bandwidths (0.9$\pm$0.9 Gy vs 1.1 $\pm$ 1.3 Gy). Interpretation: both techniques provide a similar level of dose coverage to the target volume. Although PAT improved dose conformality, higher HMD translated into increased heart toxicity, presumably due to chosen planning methodology and OAR proximity to target. Increased energy layers and spots raised PAT beam delivery time, although it could improve daily treatment workflow.

This work aims to study the generalizability of a pre-developed deep learning (DL) dose prediction model for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer and to adapt the model to three different internal treatment planning styles and one external institution planning style. We built the source model with planning data from 108 patients previously treated with VMAT for prostate cancer. For the transfer learning, we selected patient cases planned with three different styles from the same institution and one style from a different institution to adapt the source model to four target models. We compared the dose distributions predicted by the source model and the target models with the clinical dose predictions and quantified the improvement in the prediction quality for the target models over the source model using the Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) of 10% to 100% isodose volumes and the dose-volume-histogram (DVH) parameters of the planning target volume and the organs-at-risk. The source model accurately predicts dose distributions for plans generated in the same source style but performs sub-optimally for the three internal and one external target styles, with the mean DSC ranging between 0.81-0.94 and 0.82-0.91 for the internal and the external styles, respectively. With transfer learning, the target model predictions improved the mean DSC to 0.88-0.95 and 0.92-0.96 for the internal and the external styles, respectively. Target model predictions significantly improved the accuracy of the DVH parameter predictions to within 1.6%. We demonstrated model generalizability for DL-based dose prediction and the feasibility of using transfer learning to solve this problem. With 14-29 cases per style, we successfully adapted the source model into several different practice styles. This indicates a realistic way to widespread clinical implementation of DL-based dose prediction.

The use of neural networks to directly predict three-dimensional dose distributions for automatic planning is becoming popular. However, the existing methods only use patient anatomy as input and assume consistent beam configuration for all patients in the training database. The purpose of this work is to develop a more general model that, in addition to patient anatomy, also considers variable beam configurations, to achieve a more comprehensive automatic planning with a potentially easier clinical implementation, without the need of training specific models for different beam settings.