First-In-Human Validation of CT-Based Proton Range Prediction Using Prompt Gamma Imaging in Prostate Cancer Treatments

Purpose
Uncertainty in computed tomography (CT)-based range prediction substantially impairs the accuracy of proton therapy. Direct determination of the stopping-power ratio (SPR) from dual-energy CT (DECT) has been proposed (DirectSPR), and initial validation studies in phantoms and biological tissues have proven a high accuracy. However, a thorough validation of range prediction in patients has not yet been achieved by any means. Here, we present the first systematic validation of CT-based proton range prediction in patients using prompt gamma imaging (PGI).

Methods and Materials
A PGI slit camera system with improved positioning accuracy, using a floor-based docking station, was used. Its overall uncertainty for range prediction validation was determined experimentally with both x-ray and beam measurements. The accuracy of range prediction in patients was determined from clinical PGI measurements during hypofractionated treatment of 5 patients with prostate cancer - in total 30 fractions with in-room control-CTs. For each pencil-beam-scanning spot, the range shift was obtained by comparing the PGI measurement to a control-CT-based PGI simulation. Three different SPR prediction approaches were applied in simulations: a standard CT-number-to-SPR conversion (Hounsfield look-up table [HLUT]), an adapted HLUT (DECT optimized), and DirectSPR. The spot-wise weighted mean range shift from all spots served as a measure for the accuracy of the respective range prediction approach.

Results
A mean range prediction accuracy of 0.0% ± 0.5%, 0.3% ± 0.4%, and 1.8% ± 0.4% was obtained for DirectSPR, adapted HLUT, and standard HLUT, respectively. The overall validation uncertainty of the second-generation PGI slit camera is about 1 mm (2σ) for all approaches, which is smaller than the range prediction uncertainty for deep-seated tumors.

Conclusions
For the first time, range prediction accuracy was assessed in clinical routine using PGI range verification in prostate cancer treatments. Both DECT–derived range prediction approaches agree well with the measured proton range from PGI verification, whereas the standard HLUT approach differs relevantly. These results endorse the recent reduction of clinical safety margins in DirectSPR-based treatment planning in our institution.