Literature DB >> 28044325

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

Yu An1, Jianming Liang2, Steven E Schild1, Martin Bues1, Wei Liu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to range uncertainties and uncertainties caused by setup variation. The conventional inverse treatment planning of IMPT based on the planning target volume (PTV) is not often sufficient to ensure robustness of treatment plans. We applied a probabilistic framework (chance-constrained optimization) in IMPT planning to hedge against the influence of uncertainties.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively selected one patient with lung cancer, one patient with head and neck (H&N) cancer, and one with prostate cancer for this analysis. Using their original images and prescriptions, we created new IMPT plans using two methods: (1) a robust chance-constrained treatment planning method with the clinical target volume (CTV) as the target; (2) the margin-based method with PTV as the target, which was solved by commercial software, CPLEX, using linear programming. For the first method, we reformulated the model into a tractable mixed-integer programming problem and sped up the calculation using Benders decomposition. The dose-volume histograms (DVHs) from the nominal and perturbed dose distributions were used to assess and compare plan quality. DVHs for all uncertain scenarios along with the nominal DVH were plotted. The width of the "bands" of DVHs was used to quantify the plan sensitivity to uncertainty. The newly developed Benders decomposition method was compared with a commercial solution to demonstrate its computational efficiency. The trade-off between nominal plan quality and plan robustness was investigated.
RESULTS: Our chance-constrained model outperformed the PTV method in terms of tumor coverage, tumor dose homogeneity, and plan robustness. Our model was shown to produce IMPT plans to meet the dose-volume constraints of organs at risk (OARs) and had better sparing of OARs than the PTV method in the three clinical cases included in this study. The chance-constrained model provided a flexible tool for users to balance between plan robustness and plan quality. In addition, our in-house developed method was found to be much faster than the commercial solution.
CONCLUSION: With explicit control of plan robustness, the chance-constrained robust optimization model generated superior IMPT plans compared to the PTV-based method.
© 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benders decomposition; chance constraints; conditional value at risk (CVaR); intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT); robustness

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28044325      PMCID: PMC5388360          DOI: 10.1002/mp.12001

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


  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.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Thomas Bortfeld; Benjamin C Martin; Martin Soukup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  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

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.  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

6.  Beyond Gaussians: a study of single-spot modeling for scanning proton dose calculation.

Authors:  Yupeng Li; Ronald X Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Aman Anand; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Proton stereotactic body radiation therapy for clinically challenging cases of centrally and superiorly located stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Steven P Register; Xiaodong Zhang; Radhe Mohan; Joe Y Chang
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Intensity-modulated proton therapy reduces the dose to normal tissue compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy or passive scattering proton therapy and enables individualized radical radiotherapy for extensive stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: a virtual clinical study.

Authors:  Xiaodong Zhang; Yupeng Li; Xiaoning Pan; Li Xiaoqiang; Radhe Mohan; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Joe Y Chang
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  A robust approach to IMRT optimization.

Authors:  Timothy C Y Chan; Thomas Bortfeld; John N Tsitsiklis
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-05-04       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Preliminary evaluation of multifield and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Enzhuo M Quan; Wei Liu; Richard Wu; Yupeng Li; Steven J Frank; Xiaodong Zhang; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Robust intensity-modulated proton therapy to reduce high linear energy transfer in organs at risk.

Authors:  Yu An; Jie Shan; Samir H Patel; William Wong; Steven E Schild; Xiaoning Ding; Martin Bues; Wei Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Empirical Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) for Mandible Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Treated With Pencil-Beam-Scanning Proton Therapy (PBSPT): A Retrospective, Case-Matched Cohort Study.

Authors:  Yunze Yang; Olivia M Muller; Satomi Shiraishi; Matthew Harper; Adam C Amundson; William W Wong; Lisa A McGee; Jean-Claude M Rwigema; Steven E Schild; Martin Bues; Mirek Fatyga; Justin D Anderson; Samir H Patel; Robert L Foote; Wei Liu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  A novel textual track-data-based approach for estimating individual infection risk of COVID-19.

Authors:  Lu Wei; Xiaojing Li; Zhongbo Jing; Zhidong Liu
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2022-05-14       Impact factor: 4.302

5.  A fast robust optimizer for intensity modulated proton therapy using GPU.

Authors:  Yao Xu; Jinhu Chen; Ruifen Cao; Hongdong Liu; Xie George Xu; Xi Pei
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-03-06       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Beam angle comparison for distal esophageal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Hongying Feng; Terence T Sio; William G Rule; Ronik S Bhangoo; Pedro Lara; Christopher L Patrick; Shawn Korte; Mirek Fatyga; William W Wong; Steven E Schild; Jonathan B Ashman; Wei Liu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 2.243

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.