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) dMLC cover , in which the MLC encloses the target cross‐section at each energy layer, and (3) dMLC block , 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, dMLC block demonstrated an enhanced dose‐sparing effect than dMLC cover , particularly for OARs surrounded by the target. While maintaining comparable CTV D98% across three techniques, dMLC cover 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 dMLC block 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.
Wakisaka et al. (Sun,) studied this question.