Is noncoplanar plan more robust to inter‐fractional variations than coplanar plan in treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil‐beam scanning proton beams?

Abstract

AbstractPurposeNoncoplanar plans (NCPs) are commonly used for proton treatment of bilateral head and neck (HN) malignancies. NCP requires additional verification setup imaging between beams to correct residual errors of robotic couch motion, which increases imaging dose and total treatment time. This study compared the quality and robustness of NCPs with those of coplanar plans (CPs).Methods and MaterialsUnder an IRB‐approved study, CPs were created retrospectively for 10 bilateral HN patients previously treated with NCPs maintaining identical beam geometry of the original plan but excluding couch rotations. Plan robustness to the inter‐fractional variation (IV) of both plans was evaluated through the Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) of weekly quality assurance CT (QACT) sets (39 total). In addition, delivery efficiency for both plans was compared using total treatment time (TTT) and beam‐on time (BOT).ResultsNo significant differences in plan quality were observed in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage (D95) or organ‐at‐risk (OAR) doses (p > 0.4 for all CTVs and OARs). No significant advantage of NCPs in the robustness to IV was found over CP, either. Changes in D95 of QA plans showed a linear correlation (slope = 1.006, R2 > 0.99) between NCP and CP for three CTV data points (CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3) in each QA plan (117 data points for 39 QA plans). NCPs showed significantly higher beam delivery time than CPs for TTT (539 ± 50 vs. 897 ± 142 s; p < 0.001); however, no significant differences were observed for BOT.ConclusionNCPs are not more robust to IV than CPs when treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil‐beam scanning proton beams. CPs showed plan quality and robustness similar to NCPs while reduced treatment time (∼6 min). This suggests that CPs may be a more efficient planning technique for bilateral HN cancer proton therapy.