A Monte-Carlo study to assess the effect of 1.5T magnetic fields on the overall robustness of pencil-beam scanning proton radiotherapy plans for prostate cancer.

Combining magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) and proton therapy (PT) using pencil-beam scanning (PBS) may improve image-guided radiotherapy. We aimed at assessing the impact of a magnetic field on PBS-PT plan quality and robustness. Specifically, the robustness against anatomical changes and positioning errors in an MRI-guided scenario with a 30 cm radius 1.5 T magnetic field was studied for prostate PT. Five prostate cancer patients with three consecutive CT images (CT1-3) were considered. Single-field uniform dose PBS-PT plans were generated on the segmented CT1 with Monte-Carlo-based treatment planning software for inverse optimization. Plans were optimized at 90° gantry angle without B-field (no B), with ±1.5 T B-field (B and minus B), as well as at 81° gantry angle and +1.5 T (B G81). Plans were re-calculated on aligned CT2 and CT3 to study the impact of anatomical changes. Dose distributions were compared in terms of changes in DVH parameters, proton range and gamma-index pass-rates. To assess the impact of positioning errors, DVH parameters were compared for ±5 mm CT1 patient shifts in anterior-posterior (AP) and left-right (LR) direction. Proton beam deflection considerably reduced robustness against inter-fractional changes for the B scenario. Range agreement, gamma-index pass-rates and PTV V95% were significantly lower compared to no B. Improved robustness was obtained for minus B and B G81, the latter showing only minor differences to no B. The magnetic field introduced slight dosimetric changes under LR shifts. The impact of AP shifts was considerably larger, and equivalent for scenarios with and without B-field. Results suggest that robustness equivalent to PT without magnetic field can be achieved by adaptation of the treatment parameters, such as B-field orientation (minus B) with respect to the patient and/or gantry angle (B G81). MRI-guided PT for prostate cancer might thus be implemented without compromising robustness compared to state-of-the-art CT-guided PT.