Literature DB >> 22755694

Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques.

Wei Liu1, Yupeng Li, Xiaoqiang Li, Wenhua Cao, Xiaodong Zhang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The distal edge tracking (DET) technique in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) allows for high energy efficiency, fast and simple delivery, and simple inverse treatment planning; however, it is highly sensitive to uncertainties. In this study, the authors explored the application of DET in IMPT (IMPT-DET) and conducted robust optimization of IMPT-DET to see if the planning technique's sensitivity to uncertainties was reduced. They also compared conventional and robust optimization of IMPT-DET with three-dimensional IMPT (IMPT-3D) to gain understanding about how plan robustness is achieved.
METHODS: They compared the robustness of IMPT-DET and IMPT-3D plans to uncertainties by analyzing plans created for a typical prostate cancer case and a base of skull (BOS) cancer case (using data for patients who had undergone proton therapy at our institution). Spots with the highest and second highest energy layers were chosen so that the Bragg peak would be at the distal edge of the targets in IMPT-DET using 36 equally spaced angle beams; in IMPT-3D, 3 beams with angles chosen by a beam angle optimization algorithm were planned. Dose contributions for a number of range and setup uncertainties were calculated, and a worst-case robust optimization was performed. A robust quantification technique was used to evaluate the plans' sensitivity to uncertainties.
RESULTS: With no uncertainties considered, the DET is less robust to uncertainties than is the 3D method but offers better normal tissue protection. With robust optimization to account for range and setup uncertainties, robust optimization can improve the robustness of IMPT plans to uncertainties; however, our findings show the extent of improvement varies.
CONCLUSIONS: IMPT's sensitivity to uncertainties can be improved by using robust optimization. They found two possible mechanisms that made improvements possible: (1) a localized single-field uniform dose distribution (LSFUD) mechanism, in which the optimization algorithm attempts to produce a single-field uniform dose distribution while minimizing the patching field as much as possible; and (2) perturbed dose distribution, which follows the change in anatomical geometry. Multiple-instance optimization has more knowledge of the influence matrices; this greater knowledge improves IMPT plans' ability to retain robustness despite the presence of uncertainties.
© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22755694      PMCID: PMC3360691          DOI: 10.1118/1.4711909

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  28 in total

1.  Algorithms and functionality of an intensity modulated radiotherapy optimization system.

Authors:  Q Wu; R Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Inverse planning for photon and proton beams.

Authors:  U Oelfke; T Bortfeld
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.482

3.  Intensity modulated proton therapy: a clinical example.

Authors:  A J Lomax; T Boehringer; A Coray; E Egger; G Goitein; M Grossmann; P Juelke; S Lin; E Pedroni; B Rohrer; W Roser; B Rossi; B Siegenthaler; O Stadelmann; H Stauble; C Vetter; L Wisser
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Inverse planning of intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Simeon Nill; Thomas Bortfeld; Uwe Oelfke
Journal:  Z Med Phys       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.820

5.  In regard to Trofimov et al.: Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:444-453).

Authors:  Francesca Albertini; Antony J Lomax; Eugen B Hug
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Timothy C Y Chan; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties.

Authors:  A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions.

Authors:  A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  A compact linac for intensity modulated proton therapy based on a dielectric wall accelerator.

Authors:  G J Caporaso; T R Mackie; S Sampayan; Y-J Chen; D Blackfield; J Harris; S Hawkins; C Holmes; S Nelson; A Paul; B Poole; M Rhodes; D Sanders; J Sullivan; L Wang; J Watson; P J Reckwerdt; R Schmidt; D Pearson; R W Flynn; D Matthews; J Purdy
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2008-04-21       Impact factor: 2.685

10.  Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  D Pflugfelder; J J Wilkens; U Oelfke
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-02-29       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  29 in total

1.  Robust optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with soft spot sensitivity regularization.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Dan Ruan; Daniel O'Connor; Wei Zou; Lei Dong; Min-Yu Tsai; Xun Jia; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Robust treatment planning with conditional value at risk chance constraints in intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Yu An; Jianming Liang; Steven E Schild; Martin Bues; Wei Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Clinical implementation of intensity modulated proton therapy for thoracic malignancies.

Authors:  Joe Y Chang; Heng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Zhongxing Liao; Lina Zhao; Amy Liu; Yupeng Li; Narayan Sahoo; Falk Poenisch; Daniel R Gomez; Richard Wu; Michael Gillin; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Steven J Frank; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; Ron X Zhu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Robust optimization in IMPT using quadratic objective functions to account for the minimum MU constraint.

Authors:  Jie Shan; Yu An; Martin Bues; Steven E Schild; Wei Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Radhe Mohan; Peter Park; Zhong Liu; Heng Li; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; Richard Wu; Narayan Sahoo; Lei Dong; X Ronald Zhu; David R Grosshans
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-01-14

7.  Exploratory Study of 4D versus 3D Robust Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Yu-Hui Chang; Zhifei Wen; Jiajian Shen; Joshua B Stoker; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael G Herman; Carlos Vargas; Sameer Keole; William Wong; Martin Bues
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Proton energy optimization and reduction for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Wenhua Cao; Gino Lim; Li Liao; Yupeng Li; Shengpeng Jiang; Xiaoqiang Li; Heng Li; Kazumichi Suzuki; X Ronald Zhu; Daniel Gomez; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Impact of Spot Size and Spacing on the Quality of Robustly Optimized Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Plans for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Chenbin Liu; Steven E Schild; Joe Y Chang; Zhongxing Liao; Shawn Korte; Jiajian Shen; Xiaoning Ding; Yanle Hu; Yixiu Kang; Sameer R Keole; Terence T Sio; William W Wong; Narayan Sahoo; Martin Bues; Wei Liu
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) interplay effect evaluation of asymmetric breathing with simultaneous uncertainty considerations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Jie Shan; Yunze Yang; Steven E Schild; Thomas B Daniels; William W Wong; Mirek Fatyga; Martin Bues; Terence T Sio; Wei Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.