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. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. Electronic address: Liu.Wei@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. School of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China. 5. Varian Medical Systems, Inc, Palo Alto, California. 6. Scripps Proton Center, San Diego, California. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
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.
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.
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
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: 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
Authors: Martin Stuschke; Andreas Kaiser; Christoph Pöttgen; Wolfgang Lübcke; Jonathan Farr Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 6.280
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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