Impact of anatomical changes on simulated proton arc therapy and intensity‐modulated proton therapy for lung cancer

Abstract Purpose : During lung cancer radiotherapy, inter‐fractional anatomical changes may cause the delivered dose to deviate from the primary plan, affecting tumor control and increasing the risk of normal tissue damage. This study aims to evaluate the impact of anatomical changes on the dosimetric and radiobiological performance of simulated proton arc therapy (sPAT) versus intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung cancer patients under patient‐specific anatomical changes. Methods : Data from 21 lung cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed. The prescribed dose for all patients was 6000 cGy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE). Each patient with a primary planning computed tomography (pCT) and a mid‐treatment adaptive‐planning CT (aCT) acquired at a median of 29 days into treatment due to notable tumor volume changes. Primary plans for sPAT and IMPT were designed on the pCT. After rigid registration of the pCT and aCT, non‐adaptive plans (sPAT p‐a , IMPT p‐a ) were generated by directly recalculating the doses of the primary plans on the aCT. The comparison evaluated the dosimetric impact of anatomical changes by comparing non‐adaptive plans (sPAT p‐a vs. IMPT p‐a ). Dose‐volume histogram (DVH) parameters for targets and organs at risk (OARs) and tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were evaluated. Results : For the primary plans, sPAT and IMPT achieved similar target coverage, while the doses to OARs were generally lower in sPAT p . Under anatomical changes, both non‐adaptive plans exhibited a decrease in target coverage, sPAT p‐a achieved a D 95% of 5567.57 cGy[RBE] compared with 5423.33 cGy[RBE] for IMPT p‐a ( p < 0.001), indicating that sPAT better preserved target coverage. Compared with the primary plans, sPAT p‐a and IMPT p‐a exhibited TCP reductions of 5.83% and 8.07%, respectively. Conclusions : Compared with IMPT, sPAT exhibits enhanced robustness against inter‐fractional anatomical changes occurring in lung‐cancer radiotherapy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70881
Primary Topic
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of anatomical changes on simulated proton arc therapy and intensity‐modulated proton therapy for lung cancer

丁玄峰, W. E. Chen, Junxiang Wu, Da Zhang et al.
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
article

Impact of anatomical changes on simulated proton arc therapy and intensity‐modulated proton therapy for lung cancer

丁玄峰, W. E. Chen, Junxiang Wu, Da Zhang, Fanrui Zeng, Yuankang Xu, Xianliang Wang, Gang Liu, Hao Guo, Tianyu Zhang, Feng Yang
article en

Abstract

Abstract Purpose : During lung cancer radiotherapy, inter‐fractional anatomical changes may cause the delivered dose to deviate from the primary plan, affecting tumor control and increasing the risk of normal tissue damage. This study aims to evaluate the impact of anatomical changes on the dosimetric and radiobiological performance of simulated proton arc therapy (sPAT) versus intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for lung cancer patients under patient‐specific anatomical changes. Methods : Data from 21 lung cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed. The prescribed dose for all patients was 6000 cGy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE). Each patient with a primary planning computed tomography (pCT) and a mid‐treatment adaptive‐planning CT (aCT) acquired at a median of 29 days into treatment due to notable tumor volume changes. Primary plans for sPAT and IMPT were designed on the pCT. After rigid registration of the pCT and aCT, non‐adaptive plans (sPAT p‐a , IMPT p‐a ) were generated by directly recalculating the doses of the primary plans on the aCT. The comparison evaluated the dosimetric impact of anatomical changes by comparing non‐adaptive plans (sPAT p‐a vs. IMPT p‐a ). Dose‐volume histogram (DVH) parameters for targets and organs at risk (OARs) and tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were evaluated. Results : For the primary plans, sPAT and IMPT achieved similar target coverage, while the doses to OARs were generally lower in sPAT p . Under anatomical changes, both non‐adaptive plans exhibited a decrease in target coverage, sPAT p‐a achieved a D 95% of 5567.57 cGy[RBE] compared with 5423.33 cGy[RBE] for IMPT p‐a ( p < 0.001), indicating that sPAT better preserved target coverage. Compared with the primary plans, sPAT p‐a and IMPT p‐a exhibited TCP reductions of 5.83% and 8.07%, respectively. Conclusions : Compared with IMPT, sPAT exhibits enhanced robustness against inter‐fractional anatomical changes occurring in lung‐cancer radiotherapy.

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsVol. 27(11)
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN), Sichuan University (CN), Chengdu University of Technology (CN), Sichuan Cancer Hospital (CN), Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital (US), Wuhan Union Hospital (CN), Beaumont Hospital, Troy (US), Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon