Literature DB >> 25407859

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

Wei Liu1, Radhe Mohan2, Peter Park3, Zhong Liu4, Heng Li2, Xiaoqiang Li2, Yupeng Li5, Richard Wu2, Narayan Sahoo2, Lei Dong6, X Ronald Zhu2, David R Grosshans7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The clinical advantage of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may be diminished by range and patient setup uncertainties. We evaluated the effectiveness of robust optimization that incorporates uncertainties into the treatment planning optimization algorithm for treatment of base of skull cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We compared 2 IMPT planning methods for 10 patients with base of skull chordomas and chondrosarcomas: (1) conventional optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by creating a planning target volume (PTV); and (2) robust optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by optimizing individual spot weights without a PTV. We calculated root-mean-square deviation doses (RMSDs) for every voxel to generate RMSD volume histograms (RVHs). The area under the RVH curve was used for relative comparison of the 2 methods' plan robustness. Potential benefits of robust planning, in terms of target dose coverage and homogeneity and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using established clinical metrics. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged and compared with 2-sided paired t tests. The impact of tumor volume on the effectiveness of robust optimization was also analyzed.
RESULTS: Relative to conventionally optimized plans, robustly optimized plans were less sensitive for both targets and OARs. In the nominal scenario, robust and conventional optimization resulted in similar D95% doses (D95% clinical target volume [CTV]: 63.3 and 64.8 Gy relative biologic effectiveness [RBE]), P <.01]) and D5%-D95% (D5%-D95% CTV: 8.0 and 7.1 Gy[RBE], [P <.01); irradiation of OARs was less with robust optimization (brainstem V60: 0.076 vs 0.26 cm(3) [P <.01], left temporal lobe V70: 0.22 vs 0.41 cm(3), [P = .068], right temporal lobe V70: 0.016 vs 0.11 cm(3), [P = .096], left cochlea Dmean: 28.1 vs 30.1 Gy[RBE], [P = .023], right cochlea Dmean: 23.7 vs 25.2 Gy[RBE], [P = .059]). Results in the worst-case scenario were analogous.
CONCLUSIONS: Robust optimization is effective for creating clinically feasible IMPT plans for tumors of the base of skull.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25407859      PMCID: PMC4238033          DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2013.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 1879-8500


  25 in total

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

Authors:  Wei Liu; Yupeng Li; Xiaoqiang Li; Wenhua Cao; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  A characterization of robust radiation therapy treatment planning methods-from expected value to worst case optimization.

Authors:  Albin Fredriksson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Is it necessary to plan with safety margins for actively scanned proton therapy?

Authors:  F Albertini; E B Hug; A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy.

Authors:  Albin Fredriksson; Anders Forsgren; Björn Hårdemark
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  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

6.  A beam-specific planning target volume (PTV) design for proton therapy to account for setup and range uncertainties.

Authors:  Peter C Park; X Ronald Zhu; Andrew K Lee; Narayan Sahoo; Adam D Melancon; Lifei Zhang; Lei Dong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration.

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

8.  Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Steven J Frank; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; Peter C Park; Lei Dong; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Potentials of robust intensity modulated scanning proton plans for locally advanced lung cancer in comparison to intensity modulated photon plans.

Authors:  Martin Stuschke; Andreas Kaiser; Christoph Pöttgen; Wolfgang Lübcke; Jonathan Farr
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 6.280

10.  Spot scanning proton beam therapy for prostate cancer: treatment planning technique and analysis of consequences of rotational and translational alignment errors.

Authors:  Jeff Meyer; Jaques Bluett; Richard Amos; Larry Levy; Seungtaek Choi; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; X Ron Zhu; Michael Gillin; Andrew Lee
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-01-25       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  25 in total

Review 1.  Robust Proton Treatment Planning: Physical and Biological Optimization.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.934

2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Robustness Analysis for External Beam Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans: Describing Uncertainty Scenarios and Reporting Their Dosimetric Consequences.

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

5.  Technology for Innovation in Radiation Oncology.

Authors:  Indrin J Chetty; Mary K Martel; David A Jaffray; Stanley H Benedict; Stephen M Hahn; Ross Berbeco; James Deye; Robert Jeraj; Brian Kavanagh; Sunil Krishnan; Nancy Lee; Daniel A Low; David Mankoff; Lawrence B Marks; Daniel Ollendorf; Harald Paganetti; Brian Ross; Ramon Alfredo C Siochi; Robert D Timmerman; John W Wong
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  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

Review 7.  Proton therapy - Present and future.

Authors:  Radhe Mohan; David Grosshans
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2016-12-03       Impact factor: 15.470

8.  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

9.  Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer.

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

10.  The role of image-guided intensity modulated proton therapy in glioma.

Authors:  David R Grosshans; Radhe Mohan; Vinai Gondi; Helen A Shih; Anita Mahajan; Paul D Brown
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 12.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.