Kristin Stützer1, Alexander Lin2, Maura Kirk2, Liyong Lin2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, and Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: kristin.stuetzer@oncoray.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the difference in robustness of single-field optimized (SFO) and robust multifield optimized (rMFO) proton plans for oropharynx carcinoma patients by an improved robustness analysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We generated rMFO proton plans for 11 patients with oropharynx carcinoma treated with SFO intensity modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost prescription. Doses from both planning approaches were compared for the initial plans and the worst cases from 20 optimization scenarios of setup errors and range uncertainties. Expected average dose distributions per range uncertainty were obtained by weighting the contributions from the respective scenarios with their expected setup error probability, and the spread of dose parameters for different range uncertainties were quantified. Using boundary dose distributions created from 56 combined setup error and range uncertainty scenarios and considering the vanishing influence of setup errors after 30 fractions, we approximated realistic worst-case values for the total treatment course. Error bar metrics derived from these boundary doses are reported for the clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). RESULTS: The rMFO plans showed improved CTV coverage and homogeneity while simultaneously reducing the average mean dose to the constrictor muscles, larynx, and ipsilateral middle ear by 5.6 Gy, 2.0 Gy, and 3.9 Gy, respectively. We observed slightly larger differences during robustness evaluation, as well as a significantly higher average brainstem maximum and ipsilateral parotid mean dose for SFO plans. For rMFO plans, the range uncertainty-related spread in OAR dose parameters and many error bar metrics were found to be superior. The SFO plans showed a lower global maximum dose for single-scenario worst cases and a slightly lower mean oral cavity dose throughout. CONCLUSIONS: An enhanced robustness analysis has been proposed and implemented into clinical systems. The benefit of better CTV coverage and OAR dose sparing in oropharynx carcinoma patients by rMFO compared with SFO proton plans is preserved in a robustness analysis with consideration of setup error and range uncertainty.
PURPOSE: To compare the difference in robustness of single-field optimized (SFO) and robust multifield optimized (rMFO) proton plans for oropharynx carcinomapatients by an improved robustness analysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We generated rMFO proton plans for 11 patients with oropharynx carcinoma treated with SFO intensity modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost prescription. Doses from both planning approaches were compared for the initial plans and the worst cases from 20 optimization scenarios of setup errors and range uncertainties. Expected average dose distributions per range uncertainty were obtained by weighting the contributions from the respective scenarios with their expected setup error probability, and the spread of dose parameters for different range uncertainties were quantified. Using boundary dose distributions created from 56 combined setup error and range uncertainty scenarios and considering the vanishing influence of setup errors after 30 fractions, we approximated realistic worst-case values for the total treatment course. Error bar metrics derived from these boundary doses are reported for the clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). RESULTS: The rMFO plans showed improved CTV coverage and homogeneity while simultaneously reducing the average mean dose to the constrictor muscles, larynx, and ipsilateral middle ear by 5.6 Gy, 2.0 Gy, and 3.9 Gy, respectively. We observed slightly larger differences during robustness evaluation, as well as a significantly higher average brainstem maximum and ipsilateral parotid mean dose for SFO plans. For rMFO plans, the range uncertainty-related spread in OAR dose parameters and many error bar metrics were found to be superior. The SFO plans showed a lower global maximum dose for single-scenario worst cases and a slightly lower mean oral cavity dose throughout. CONCLUSIONS: An enhanced robustness analysis has been proposed and implemented into clinical systems. The benefit of better CTV coverage and OAR dose sparing in oropharynx carcinomapatients by rMFO compared with SFO proton plans is preserved in a robustness analysis with consideration of setup error and range uncertainty.
Authors: Christina Hague; Marianne Aznar; Lei Dong; Alireza Fotouhi-Ghiam; Lip Wai Lee; Taoran Li; Alexander Lin; Matthew Lowe; John N Lukens; Andrew McPartlin; Shannon O'Reilly; Nick Slevin; Samuel Swisher-Mcclure; David Thomson; Marcel Van Herk; Catharine West; Wei Zou; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michael P Butkus; Nellie Brovold; Tejan Diwanji; Yihang Xu; Mariluz De Ornelas; Alan Dal Pra; Matt Abramowitz; Alan Pollack; Nesrin Dogan Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Karla Leach; Shikui Tang; Jared Sturgeon; Andrew K Lee; Ryan Grover; Parag Sanghvi; James Urbanic; Chang Chang Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Alexander Lin; John H C Chang; Ryan S Grover; Frank J P Hoebers; Upendra Parvathaneni; Samir H Patel; Juliette Thariat; David J Thomson; Johannes A Langendijk; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25