PURPOSE: To evaluate a method for quantifying the effect of setup errors and range uncertainties on dose distribution and dose-volume histogram using statistical parameters; and to assess existing planning practice in selected treatment sites under setup and range uncertainties. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty passively scattered proton lung cancer plans, 10 prostate, and 1 brain cancer scanning-beam proton plan(s) were analyzed. To account for the dose under uncertainties, we performed a comprehensive simulation in which the dose was recalculated 600 times per given plan under the influence of random and systematic setup errors and proton range errors. On the basis of simulation results, we determined the probability of dose variations and calculated the expected values and standard deviations of dose-volume histograms. The uncertainties in dose were spatially visualized on the planning CT as a probability map of failure to target coverage or overdose of critical structures. RESULTS: The expected value of target coverage under the uncertainties was consistently lower than that of the nominal value determined from the clinical target volume coverage without setup error or range uncertainty, with a mean difference of -1.1% (-0.9% for breath-hold), -0.3%, and -2.2% for lung, prostate, and a brain cases, respectively. The organs with most sensitive dose under uncertainties were esophagus and spinal cord for lung, rectum for prostate, and brain stem for brain cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically feasible robustness plan analysis tool based on direct dose calculation and statistical simulation has been developed. Both the expectation value and standard deviation are useful to evaluate the impact of uncertainties. The existing proton beam planning method used in this institution seems to be adequate in terms of target coverage. However, structures that are small in volume or located near the target area showed greater sensitivity to uncertainties.
PURPOSE: To evaluate a method for quantifying the effect of setup errors and range uncertainties on dose distribution and dose-volume histogram using statistical parameters; and to assess existing planning practice in selected treatment sites under setup and range uncertainties. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty passively scattered proton lung cancer plans, 10 prostate, and 1 brain cancer scanning-beam proton plan(s) were analyzed. To account for the dose under uncertainties, we performed a comprehensive simulation in which the dose was recalculated 600 times per given plan under the influence of random and systematic setup errors and proton range errors. On the basis of simulation results, we determined the probability of dose variations and calculated the expected values and standard deviations of dose-volume histograms. The uncertainties in dose were spatially visualized on the planning CT as a probability map of failure to target coverage or overdose of critical structures. RESULTS: The expected value of target coverage under the uncertainties was consistently lower than that of the nominal value determined from the clinical target volume coverage without setup error or range uncertainty, with a mean difference of -1.1% (-0.9% for breath-hold), -0.3%, and -2.2% for lung, prostate, and a brain cases, respectively. The organs with most sensitive dose under uncertainties were esophagus and spinal cord for lung, rectum for prostate, and brain stem for brain cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically feasible robustness plan analysis tool based on direct dose calculation and statistical simulation has been developed. Both the expectation value and standard deviation are useful to evaluate the impact of uncertainties. The existing proton beam planning method used in this institution seems to be adequate in terms of target coverage. However, structures that are small in volume or located near the target area showed greater sensitivity to uncertainties.
Authors: Yixiu Kang; Xiaodong Zhang; Joe Y Chang; He Wang; Xiong Wei; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Peter A Balter; Helen Liu; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ming Yang; X Ronald Zhu; Peter C Park; Uwe Titt; Radhe Mohan; Gary Virshup; James E Clayton; Lei Dong Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Adam D Yock; Radhe Mohan; Stella Flampouri; Walter Bosch; Paige A Taylor; David Gladstone; Siyong Kim; Jason Sohn; Robert Wallace; Ying Xiao; Jeff Buchsbaum Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-15
Authors: Eric Dinges; Nicole Felderman; Sarah McGuire; Brandie Gross; Sudershan Bhatia; Sarah Mott; John Buatti; Dongxu Wang Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Wei Liu; Samir H Patel; Jiajian Jason Shen; Yanle Hu; Daniel P Harrington; Xiaoning Ding; Michele Y Halyard; Steven E Schild; William W Wong; Gary A Ezzell; Martin Bues Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-02-13