Reproducibility of the lung anatomy under active breathing coordinator control: Dosimetric consequences for scanned proton treatments.

Purpose: The treatment of moving targets with scanned proton beams is challenging. For motion mitigation, an Active Breathing Coordinator (ABC) can be used to assist breath-holding. The delivery of pencil beam scanning fields often exceeds feasible breath-hold durations, requiring high breath-hold reproducibility. We evaluated the robustness of scanned proton therapy against anatomical uncertainties when treating nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients during ABC controlled breath-hold.

Methods: Four subsequent MRIs of five healthy volunteers (3 male, 2 female, age: 25-58, BMI: 19-29) were acquired under ABC controlled breath-hold during two simulated treatment fractions, providing both intrafractional and interfractional information about breath-hold reproducibility. Deformation vector fields between these MRIs were used to deform CTs of five NSCLC patients. Per patient, four or five cases with different tumor locations were modeled, simulating a total of 23 NSCLC patients. Robustly optimized (3 and 5 mm setup uncertainty respectively and 3% density perturbation) intensity-modulated proton plans (IMPT) were created and split into subplans of 20 s duration (assumed breath-hold duration). A fully fractionated treatment was recalculated on the deformed CTs. For each treatment fraction the deformed CTs representing multiple breath-hold geometries were alternated to simulate repeated ABC breath-holding during irradiation. Also a worst-case scenario was simulated by recalculating the complete treatment plan on the deformed CT scan showing the largest deviation with the first deformed CT scan, introducing a systematic error. Both the fractionated breath-hold scenario and worst-case scenario were dosimetrically evaluated.

Results: Looking at the deformation vector fields between the MRIs of the volunteers, up to 8 mm median intra- and interfraction displacements (without outliers) were found for all lung segments. The dosimetric evaluation showed a median difference in D between the planned and breath-hold scenarios of -0.1 Gy (range: -4.1 Gy to 2.0 Gy). D target coverage was more than 57.0 Gy for 22/23 cases. The D of the CTV increased for 21/23 simulations, with a median difference of 0.9 Gy (range: -0.3 to 4.6 Gy). For 14/23 simulations the increment was beyond the allowed maximum dose of 63.0 Gy, though remained under 66.0 Gy (110% of the prescribed dose of 60.0 Gy). Organs at risk doses differed little compared to the planned doses (difference in mean doses <0.9 Gy for the heart and lungs, <1.4% difference in V [%] and V [%] to the esophagus and lung).

Conclusions: When treating under ABC controlled breath-hold, robustly optimized IMPT plans show limited dosimetric consequences due to anatomical variations between repeated ABC breath-holds for most cases. Thus, the combination of robustly optimized IMPT plans and the delivery under ABC controlled breath-hold presents a safe approach for PBS lung treatments.