Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Patient anatomy-specific trade-offs between sub-clinical disease coverage and normal tissue dose reduction in
Laura Patricia Kaplan1, Anne Ivalu Sander Holm2, Jesper Grau Eriksen3
1Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Purpose:
Risk of subclinical disease decreases with increasing distance from the GTV in head- and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Depending on individual patient anatomy, OAR sparing could be improved by reducing target coverage in regions with low risk of subclinical spread. Using automated multi-criteria optimization, we investigate patient-specific optimal trade-offs between target periphery coverage and OAR sparing.
Methods:
VMAT plans for 39 HNSCC patients were retrospectively created following our clinical three-target-level protocol: high-risk (PTV1), intermediate-risk (PTV2, 5 mm expansion from PTV1), and elective (PTV3). A baseline plan fulfilling clinical constraints (D 99 % ≥95 % for all PTVs) was compared to three plans with reduced PTV2 coverage (goals: PTV2 D 99 % ≥90 % or 85 %, or no PTV2) at the outer edge of PTV2. Plans were compared on PTV D 99 %, OAR D mean, and NTCP (xerostomia/dysphagia).
Results:
Trade-offs between PTV2 coverage and OAR doses varied considerably between patients. For plans with PTV2 D 99 % -goal 90 %, median PTV2 D 99 % was 91.5 % resulting in xerostomia (≥grade 4) and dysphagia (≥grade 2) NTCP decrease of median [maximum] 1.9 % [5.3 %] and 1.1 % [4.1 %], respectively, compared to nominal PTV2 D 99 % -goal 95 %. For PTV2 D 99 % -goal 85 % median PTV D 99 % was 87 % with NTCP improvements of 4.6 % [9.9 %] and 1.5 % [5.4 %]. For no-margin plans, PTV2 D 99 % decreased to 83.3 % with NTCP reductions of 5.1 % [10.2 %] and 1.4 % [6.1 %].
Conclusion:
Clinically relevant, patient-specific reductions in OARs and NTCP were observed at limited cost in target under-coverage at the outermost PTV edge. Given the observed inter-patient variations, individual evaluation is warranted to determine whether trade- offs would benefit a specific patient.
