View in EDS

Enhancing dose conformity in head and neck intensity‐modulated proton therapy using a novel dynamic multi‐leaf collimator strategy.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Enhancing dose conformity in head and neck intensity‐modulated proton therapy using a novel dynamic multi‐leaf collimator strategy.
Authors: Wakisaka, Yushi1,2 (AUTHOR) yushi.wakisaka@opchakuho.com, Tominaga, Yuki1,2 (AUTHOR), Miyasaka, Yuya3 (AUTHOR), Rahimi, Robabeh4 (AUTHOR), Furutani, Keith M5,6 (AUTHOR), Nakata, Mayu1 (AUTHOR), Iwai, Takeo3 (AUTHOR), Nishio, Teiji2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Medical Physics. Feb2026, Vol. 53 Issue 2, p1-12. 12p.
Subjects: Collimators, Proton therapy, Radiation doses, Head & neck cancer, Radiotherapy treatment planning
Abstract: Background: Proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) enables highly conformal dose distributions; however, its lateral dose fall‐off (penumbra) can be compromised by the use of range shifters (RSs) and increased air gaps. In PBS for head and neck regions, where critical organs at risk (OARs) are frequently adjacent to the target, penumbra degradation may lead to increased OAR doses or suboptimal target coverage. The integration of a dynamic multi‐leaf collimator (dMLC), which adjusts leaf positions at each energy layer, has been shown to improve dose conformity in single‐field uniform dose (SFUD) delivery. In parallel, intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) offers enhanced dose shaping over SFUD by modulating beam intensity across multiple fields and does not require a single beam to encompass the entire target volume, providing greater flexibility in utilizing dMLC capabilities. Purpose: This study integrates dMLC into IMPT for head and neck cancer and proposes a novel leaf positioning strategy. We evaluate the dosimetric impact of this approach and assess its potential clinical benefits in terms of target coverage and OAR sparing. Methods: Treatment plans were retrospectively created for five patients with head and neck cancer. For each patient, IMPT plans with three beam angles were generated using three techniques: (1) uncollimated PBS, (2) dMLCcover, in which the MLC encloses the target cross‐section at each energy layer, and (3) dMLCblock, in which the MLC actively blocks OARs and their distal regions. Dose‐volume histogram (DVH) metrics for the clinical target volume (CTV) and OARs were evaluated, including a total of 21 perturbed scenarios that combined ± 2 mm setup uncertainties (7 scenarios) and ± 3.5% range uncertainties (3 scenarios). The accuracy of dose calculations was validated by comparing calculated and measured lateral dose distributions at the isocenter plane in water using two‐dimensional gamma analysis with a 2%/2 mm criterion. Results: The integration of dMLC with IMPT significantly reduced the dose to surrounding OARs while maintaining comparable target coverage and robustness relative to uncollimated PBS. Notably, dMLCblock demonstrated an enhanced dose‐sparing effect than dMLCcover, particularly for OARs surrounded by the target. While maintaining comparable CTV D98% across three techniques, dMLCcover achieved the greatest reduction in the mean doses to the eyeballs and optic nerves, as well as in the D2% to the optic chiasm, brain, and brainstem in most cases. The gamma passing rate between calculated and measured doses for dMLCblock exceeded 95% for all beams, confirming the accuracy of dose calculations involving complex leaf positions. Conclusions: The combination of IMPT and dMLC provides notable dosimetric advantages, supporting its potential for clinical applications. Further validation across a broader range of cases is necessary to comprehensively assess its efficacy and safety, particularly with respect to leaf positioning accuracy and potential variations in biological effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Physics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Background: Proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) enables highly conformal dose distributions; however, its lateral dose fall‐off (penumbra) can be compromised by the use of range shifters (RSs) and increased air gaps. In PBS for head and neck regions, where critical organs at risk (OARs) are frequently adjacent to the target, penumbra degradation may lead to increased OAR doses or suboptimal target coverage. The integration of a dynamic multi‐leaf collimator (dMLC), which adjusts leaf positions at each energy layer, has been shown to improve dose conformity in single‐field uniform dose (SFUD) delivery. In parallel, intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) offers enhanced dose shaping over SFUD by modulating beam intensity across multiple fields and does not require a single beam to encompass the entire target volume, providing greater flexibility in utilizing dMLC capabilities. Purpose: This study integrates dMLC into IMPT for head and neck cancer and proposes a novel leaf positioning strategy. We evaluate the dosimetric impact of this approach and assess its potential clinical benefits in terms of target coverage and OAR sparing. Methods: Treatment plans were retrospectively created for five patients with head and neck cancer. For each patient, IMPT plans with three beam angles were generated using three techniques: (1) uncollimated PBS, (2) dMLCcover, in which the MLC encloses the target cross‐section at each energy layer, and (3) dMLCblock, in which the MLC actively blocks OARs and their distal regions. Dose‐volume histogram (DVH) metrics for the clinical target volume (CTV) and OARs were evaluated, including a total of 21 perturbed scenarios that combined ± 2 mm setup uncertainties (7 scenarios) and ± 3.5% range uncertainties (3 scenarios). The accuracy of dose calculations was validated by comparing calculated and measured lateral dose distributions at the isocenter plane in water using two‐dimensional gamma analysis with a 2%/2 mm criterion. Results: The integration of dMLC with IMPT significantly reduced the dose to surrounding OARs while maintaining comparable target coverage and robustness relative to uncollimated PBS. Notably, dMLCblock demonstrated an enhanced dose‐sparing effect than dMLCcover, particularly for OARs surrounded by the target. While maintaining comparable CTV D98% across three techniques, dMLCcover achieved the greatest reduction in the mean doses to the eyeballs and optic nerves, as well as in the D2% to the optic chiasm, brain, and brainstem in most cases. The gamma passing rate between calculated and measured doses for dMLCblock exceeded 95% for all beams, confirming the accuracy of dose calculations involving complex leaf positions. Conclusions: The combination of IMPT and dMLC provides notable dosimetric advantages, supporting its potential for clinical applications. Further validation across a broader range of cases is necessary to comprehensively assess its efficacy and safety, particularly with respect to leaf positioning accuracy and potential variations in biological effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00942405
DOI:10.1002/mp.70355