Introduction
In head-and-neck IMPT, trigger-based offline plan adaptation (Offline trigger-based) is often used. Our goal was to compare this to four alternative adaptive strategies for dosimetry, workload and treatment time, considering also foreseen further technological advancements, including anticipated automation.

Materials and methods
Alternative strategies included weekly offline re-planning (Offline weekly), daily plan selection from a library (Library static and Library progressive) and a fast, approximate daily online re-optimization approach (Online re-opt). Impact on CTV coverage and NTCPs was assessed by simulations based on repeat-CTs from 15 patients. Full daily re-planning was used as dosimetric benchmark. Increases in workload and treatment time were estimated.

Results
Both for coverage and NTCPs, fast Online re-opt performed as well as full re-planning. Compared to current practice, Online re-opt showed enhanced probabilities for high coverage, and resulted in reductions in grade ≥ II NTCPs of 4.6 ± 1.7 %-point for xerostomia and 4.2 ± 2.3 %-point for dysphagia. Offline weekly and library strategies did not show coverage enhancements and resulted in smaller NTCP improvements. Further automation can largely limit workload and treatment time increases. With anticipated further automation, adaptation-related workload of Offline weekly, Library static, Library progressive, and Online re-opt was expected to increase by 3, 8, 21, and 66 h for 35 fraction treatment courses compared to Offline trigger-based. The corresponding adaptation-related prolonged treatment times were estimated to be 0, 4, 6, and 29 min/fraction.

Conclusion
Online adaptive strategies could approach dosimetric quality of full re-planning at the cost of additional workload and prolonged treatment time compared to the current offline adaptive strategy. Automation needs to play a key role in making more complex adaptive approaches feasible.

Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric impact of breathing motion on robustly optimized proton therapy treatment plans for left-sided breast cancer patients with an indication for locoregional irradiation. Materials and methods: Clinical Target Volumes (CTVs) (left-sided breast, level 1 to 4 axillary lymph nodes, interpectoral and internal mammary lymph node regions) and organs at risk were delineated on 4 D-CTs of ten female patients. After treatment planning to a prescribed dose of 40.05 Gy(RBE) in 15 fractions on the time-averaged CT, the dose was calculated on all ten phases of the breathing cycle. Robustness to setup (5 mm) and range errors (3%) was evaluated for those ten phases. Correlations were evaluated between the phases of the breathing cycle and the D98% of the CTV and the D_mean of the heart. Results: Correlations coefficients were between −0.12 and 0.29. At the most extreme values of the 28 robustness scenarios, the clinical goals were met for all but two patients. The mean heart dose was 0.41 Gy(RBE) with a standard deviation of 0.31 Gy(RBE) of proton therapy plans. Conclusion: The effect of breathing motion on the robustness of proton therapy treatment plans for this patient group is minor and not of clinical significance. Based on this patient group, a deep-inspiration breath hold seems to be unnecessary to improve robustness for these patients.