Key result
Proton arc therapy maintains ~98% target volume coverage during motion vs IMPT in virtual simulations.
Why the study?
Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation using proton therapy is motion-sensitive, and the comparative robustness of 4D-optimized IMPT versus PAT against cardiorespiratory motion is unclear.
Does proton arc therapy (PAT) improve clinical target volume coverage compared to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) against cardiorespiratory motion in virtual patients undergoing stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation?
Does proton arc therapy (PAT) improve clinical target volume coverage compared to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) against cardiorespiratory motion in virtual patients undergoing stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 98.2% vs 86.4%
In a virtual patient simulation, proton arc therapy demonstrated smaller motion-related reductions in clinical target volume coverage compared to intensity-modulated proton therapy for stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation.
PAT may better preserve CTV coverage under motion in STAR simulations; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) is an emerging noninvasive treatment for refractory ventricular tachycardia. Proton therapy offers dosimetric advantages, but pencil-beam scanning is motion-sensitive. This study used an extended cardiac-torso (XCAT)-based 4D dynamic dose (4DDD) framework to compare motion-induced changes between 4D-robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and proton arc therapy (PAT). Methods Twenty-four XCAT-based virtual patients were generated by varying sex, ejection fraction, respiratory motion, and left ventricular (LV) motion amplitude. IMPT and PAT plans used 4D robust optimization (4DRO). Nominal dose and 4DDD evaluations were compared for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. LV segment-specific analyses were performed. Volume rescanning scenarios of 1r, 2r, and 4r were simulated. Results Both techniques achieved adequate CTV coverage under nominal dose evaluation. Under 4DDD evaluation, IMPT showed greater degradation than PAT, with D 95 decreasing from 25.6 ± 0.3 to 24.7 ± 0.8 Gy (RBE) and V 25 from 99.5 ± 0.9% to 86.4 ± 13.9%. PAT showed smaller changes, with D 95 decreasing from 25.5 ± 0.2 to 25.4 ± 0.4 Gy (RBE) and V 25 from 99.8 ± 0.4% to 98.2 ± 3.2%. Segments 4, 5, and 6 showed greater degradation; Segments 15 and 16 were more stable. Rescanning improved CTV coverage and homogeneity. Conclusions Within the investigated XCAT scenarios, PAT showed smaller motion-related reductions in CTV coverage than IMPT after 4DRO. For PAT, two additional rescans (2r; three total deliveries) maintained stable CTV metrics under the tested starting-phase arrangement, while IMPT showed greater benefit from rescanning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2026) studied Refractory ventricular tachycardia (n=24). Proton arc therapy (PAT) vs. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) was evaluated on Clinical target volume (CTV) coverage (V25) under 4D dynamic dose evaluation. In virtual patient simulations, proton arc therapy showed smaller motion-related reductions in clinical target volume coverage (V25 decreased to 98.2%) compared to IMPT (V25 decreased to 86.4%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: