Single Ultra-High Dose Rate Proton Transmission Beam for Whole Breast FLASH-Irradiation: Quantification of FLASH-Dose and Relation with Beam Parameters

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Ultra-high dose-rate (UHDR) irradiation can lead to a FLASH-effect which reduces the biological effect on healthy tissue without affecting the dose to the tumor. UHDRs can currently be achieved using 250 MeV (transmission) proton beams. Up until now, suggested treatment sites potentially benefiting from a FLASH effect include, e.g., small lung, skin, and brain tumors. We suggest the use of FLASH for breast tumors because almost the entire target consists of healthy tissue and hypofractionated dose schedules are common. In this study, we demonstrate that whole breast irradiation (WBI) can be performed using a single transmission proton beam. We evaluated the necessary proton beam parameters in order to achieve the maximum FLASH-effect according to our current knowledge. Although currently not clinically applicable, we hypothesize that a potential FLASH-effect can even allow for further hypofractionation of WBI. ABSTRACT: Healthy tissue-sparing effects of FLASH (≥40 Gy/s, ≥4–8 Gy/fraction) radiotherapy (RT) make it potentially useful for whole breast irradiation (WBI), since there is often a lot of normal tissue within the planning target volume (PTV). We investigated WBI plan quality and determined FLASH-dose for various machine settings using ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) proton transmission beams (TBs). While five-fraction WBI is commonplace, a potential FLASH-effect might facilitate shorter treatments, so hypothetical 2- and 1-fraction schedules were also analyzed. Using one tangential 250 MeV TB delivering 5 × 5.7 Gy, 2 × 9.74 Gy or 1 × 14.32 Gy, we evaluated: (1) spots with equal monitor units (MUs) in a uniform square grid with variable spacing; (2) spot MUs optimized with a minimum MU-threshold; and (3) splitting the optimized TB into two sub-beams: one delivering spots above an MU-threshold, i.e., at UHDRs; the other delivering the remaining spots necessary to improve plan quality. Scenarios 1–3 were planned for a test case, and scenario 3 was also planned for three other patients. Dose rates were calculated using the pencil beam scanning dose rate and the sliding-window dose rate. Various machine parameters were considered: minimum spot irradiation time (minST): 2 ms/1 ms/0.5 ms; maximum nozzle current (maxN): 200 nA/400 nA/800 nA; two gantry-current (GC) techniques: energy-layer and spot-based. For the test case (PTV = 819 cc) we found: (1) a 7 mm grid achieved the best balance between plan quality and FLASH-dose for equal-MU spots; (2) near the target boundary, lower-MU spots are necessary for homogeneity but decrease FLASH-dose; (3) the non-split beam achieved >95% FLASH for favorable (not clinically available) machine parameters (SB GC, low minST, high maxN), but <5% for clinically available settings (EB GC, minST = 2 ms, maxN = 200 nA); and (4) splitting gave better plan quality and higher FLASH-dose (~50%) for available settings. The clinical cases achieved ~50% (PTV = 1047 cc) or >95% (PTV = 477/677 cc) FLASH after splitting. A single UHDR-TB for WBI can achieve acceptable plan quality. Current machine parameters limit FLASH-dose, which can be partially overcome using beam-splitting. WBI FLASH-RT is technically feasible.