FLASH-enabled Proton SBRT for a challenging case of spine metastasis

TL;DR

This study demonstrates that FLASH proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) can effectively treat spine metastases while sparing the spinal cord, using specific FLASH modifying factors to achieve organ protection.

Contribution

It introduces a conformal FLASH proton SBRT planning method for spine metastasis and establishes FLASH modifying factors necessary for spinal cord protection.

Findings

Plans achieved robust target coverage across fractionation schemes.

Spinal cord regions can meet FLASH effect conditions with appropriate FMFs.

Potential to prevent spinal cord damage and paralysis in metastatic spine treatment.

Abstract

The FLASH effect, characterized by potential sparing of organs at risk (OAR) through ultra-high dose rate irradiation, has garnered significant attention for its capability to address indications previously untreatable at conventional dose rates (DR) with hypofractionated schemes. While considerable biological research is needed to understand the FLASH effect and determine the FLASH modifying factors (FMF) for individual OARs, exploratory treatment planning studies have also emerged. This study aims to show that spinal metastases are candidate treatment sites likely to benefit from this phenomenon and establish the requisite FMFs to achieve the protective FLASH effect. A conformal FLASH Proton SBRT plan was generated for a patient with spine metastasis in a research version of RayStation11B (RaySearch laboratories AB, Stockhom) on an IBA Proteus Plus system. Two oblique posterior beams were used in the plan. The prescribed dose to the CTV was set according to 3 different fractionation regimens: 5 fractions (fx) of 7 Gy, 8 fx of 5 Gy, and 10 fx of 4.2 Gy. Spot filtering and sorting techniques were applied to maximize the 5% pencil beam scanning DR in the spinal cord (SC). The FLASH effect was assumed to be observed within irradiated regions above 40 Gy/s and 4 Gy per fraction. The generated plans successfully ensure robust target coverage in each fraction. The volume of SC that does not comply with the clinical goal adheres to the FLASH effect conditions in each fraction. Depending on the aforementioned fractionation schemes used, a FMF of approximately 0.6 to 0.8 is necessary to enable such treatment in FLASH conditions. Our study demonstrates the potential of hypofractionated FLASH PT in treating spine metastasis while preserving SC integrity. This approach could enable more effective treatment of spinal metastases, potentially preventing SC compression and paralysis in these patients.