3D‐conformal very‐high energy electron therapy as candidate modality for FLASH‐RT: A treatment planning study for glioblastoma and lung cancer
Authors: Böhlen Till Tobias , Germond Jean‐François , Traneus Erik , Vallet Veronique , Desorgher Laurent , Ozsahin Esat Mahmut , Bochud François , Bourhis Jean , Moeckli Raphaël 
Published: July 2023

AbstractBackgroundPre‐clinical ultra‐high dose rate (UHDR) electron irradiations on time scales of 100 ms have demonstrated a remarkable sparing of brain and lung tissues while retaining tumor efficacy when compared to conventional dose rate irradiations. While clinically‐used gantries and intensity modulation techniques are too slow to match such time scales, novel very‐high energy electron (VHEE, 50–250 MeV) radiotherapy (RT) devices using 3D‐conformed broad VHEE beams are designed to deliver UHDR treatments that fulfill these timing requirements.PurposeTo assess the dosimetric plan quality obtained using VHEE‐based 3D‐conformal RT (3D‐CRT) for treatments of glioblastoma and lung cancer patients and compare the resulting treatment plans to those delivered by standard‐of‐care intensity modulated photon RT (IMRT) techniques.MethodsSeven glioblastoma patients and seven lung cancer patients were planned with VHEE‐based 3D‐CRT using 3 to 16 coplanar beams with equidistant angular spacing and energies of 100 and 200 MeV using a forward planning approach. Dose distributions, dose‐volume histograms, coverage (V95%) and homogeneity (HI98%) for the planning target volume (PTV), as well as near‐maximum doses (D2%) and mean doses (Dmean) for organs‐at‐risk (OAR) were evaluated and compared to clinical IMRT plans.ResultsMean differences of V95% and HI98% of all VHEE plans were within 2% or better of the IMRT reference plans. Glioblastoma plan dose metrics obtained with VHEE configurations of 200 MeV and 3–16 beams were either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the clinical IMRT reference plans. All OAR plan dose metrics evaluated for VHEE plans created using 5 beams of 100 MeV were either not significantly different or within 3% on average, except for Dmean for the body, Dmean for the brain, D2% for the brain stem, and D2% for the chiasm, which were significantly increased by 1, 2, 6, and 8 Gy, respectively (however below clinical constraints). Similarly, the dose metrics for lung cancer patients were also either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the reference plans for VHEE configurations with 200 MeV and 5 to 16 beams with the exception of D2% and Dmean to the spinal canal (however below clinical constraints). For the lung cancer cases, the VHEE configurations using 100 MeV or only 3 beams resulted in significantly worse dose metrics for some OAR. Differences in dose metrics were, however, strongly patient‐specific and similar for some patient cases.ConclusionsVHEE‐based 3D‐CRT may deliver conformal treatments to simple, mostly convex target shapes in the brain and the thorax with a limited number of critical adjacent OAR using a limited number of beams (as low as 3 to 7). Using such treatment techniques, a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of standard‐of‐care IMRT can be achieved. Hence, from a treatment planning perspective, 3D‐conformal UHDR VHEE treatments delivered on time scales of 100 ms represent a promising candidate technique for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect.