The influence of daily imaging and target margin reduction on secondary cancer risk in image-guided and adaptive proton therapy

<i>Objective</i>. Image-guided and adaptive proton therapy rely on daily CBCT or CT imaging, which increases radiation dose and radiation-induced cancer risk. Online adaptation however also reduces setup uncertainty, and the additional risk might be compensated by reducing the setup robustness margin. This work developed a framework to investigate how much this robustness margin should be reduced to offset the secondary cancer risk from additional imaging dose and applied it to proton therapy for head-and-neck cancer.<i>Approach</i>. For five patients with head-and-neck cancer, voxel-wise CT and CBCT imaging doses were estimated with Monte Carlo radiation transport simulations, calibrated with air and PMMA phantom measurements. The total dose of several image-guided and adaptive treatments protocols was calculated by summing the planning CT dose, daily and weekly CBCT or CT dose, and therapy dose, robustly optimized with setup margins between 0 and 4 mm. These were compared to a reference protocol with 4 mm setup margin without daily imaging. All plans further used 3% range robustness. Organ-wise excess absolute risk (EAR) of cancer was calculated with three models to determine at which setup margin the total EAR of image-guided and adaptive treatment protocols was equal to the total EAR of the reference.<i>Results</i>. The difference between the simulated and measured CT and CBCT doses was within 10%. Using the Monte Carlo models, we found that a 1 mm setup margin reduction was sufficient for most patients, treatment protocols, and cancer risk models to compensate the additional risk imposed by daily and weekly imaging. For some protocols, even a smaller reduction sufficed, depending on the imaging frequency and type. The risk reduction by reducing the margin was mainly due to reducing the risk for carcinomas in the brain and, for some patients, the oral cavity.<i>Significance</i>. Our framework allows to compare an increased imaging dose with the reduced treatment dose from margin reductions in terms of radiation-induced cancer risk. It is extendable to different treatment sites, modalities, and imaging protocols, in clinic-specific or even patient-specific assessments.