Literature DB >> 30570164

Robust optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with soft spot sensitivity regularization.

Wenbo Gu1, Dan Ruan1, Daniel O'Connor1, Wei Zou2, Lei Dong2, Min-Yu Tsai3, Xun Jia3, Ke Sheng1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Proton dose distribution is sensitive to uncertainties in range estimation and patient positioning. Currently, the proton robustness is managed by worst-case scenario optimization methods, which are computationally inefficient. To overcome these challenges, we develop a novel intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization method that integrates dose fidelity with a sensitivity term that describes dose perturbation as the result of range and positioning uncertainties.
METHODS: In the integrated optimization framework, the optimization cost function is formulated to include two terms: a dose fidelity term and a robustness term penalizing the inner product of the scanning spot sensitivity and intensity. The sensitivity of an IMPT scanning spot to perturbations is defined as the dose distribution variation induced by range and positioning errors. To evaluate the sensitivity, the spatial gradient of the dose distribution of a specific spot is first calculated. The spot sensitivity is then determined by the total absolute value of the directional gradients of all affected voxels. The fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm is used to solve the optimization problem. This method was tested on three skull base tumor (SBT) patients and three bilateral head-and-neck (H&N) patients. The proposed sensitivity-regularized method (SenR) was implemented on both clinic target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). They were compared with conventional PTV-based optimization method (Conv) and CTV-based voxel-wise worst-case scenario optimization approach (WC).
RESULTS: Under the nominal condition without uncertainties, the three methods achieved similar CTV dose coverage, while the CTV-based SenR approach better spared organs at risks (OARs) compared with the WC approach, with an average reduction of [Dmean, Dmax] of [4.72, 3.38]  GyRBE for the SBT cases and [2.54, 3.33] GyRBE for the H&N cases. The OAR sparing of the PTV-based SenR method was comparable with the WC method. The WC method, and SenR approaches all improved the plan robustness from the conventional PTV-based method. On average, under range uncertainties, the lowest [D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [93.75%, 88.47%, 47.37%] in the Conv method, to [99.28%, 99.51%, 86.64%] in the WC method, [97.71%, 97.85%, 81.65%] in the SenR-CTV method and [98.77%, 99.30%, 85.12%] in the SenR-PTV method, respectively. Under setup uncertainties, the average lowest [D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [95.35%, 94.92%, 65.12%] in the Conv method, to [99.43%, 99.63%, 87.12%] in the WC method, [96.97%, 97.13%, 77.86%] in the SenR-CTV method, and [98.21%, 98.34%, 83.88%] in the SenR-PTV method, respectively. The runtime of the SenR optimization is eight times shorter than that of the voxel-wise worst-case method.
CONCLUSION: We developed a novel computationally efficient robust optimization method for IMPT. The robustness is calculated as the spot sensitivity to both range and shift perturbations. The dose fidelity term is then regularized by the sensitivity term for the flexibility and trade-off between the dosimetry and the robustness. In the stress test, SenR is more resilient to unexpected uncertainties. These advantages in combination with its fast computation time make it a viable candidate for clinical IMPT planning.
© 2018 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  intensity modulated proton therapy; perturbation; robustness; sensitivity

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30570164      PMCID: PMC6581199          DOI: 10.1002/mp.13344

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


  35 in total

1.  Intensity modulated proton therapy: a clinical example.

Authors:  A J Lomax; T Boehringer; A Coray; E Egger; G Goitein; M Grossmann; P Juelke; S Lin; E Pedroni; B Rohrer; W Roser; B Rossi; B Siegenthaler; O Stadelmann; H Stauble; C Vetter; L Wisser
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Quantifying lateral tissue heterogeneities in hadron therapy.

Authors:  D Pflugfelder; J J Wilkens; H Szymanowski; U Oelfke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Timothy C Y Chan; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties.

Authors:  A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions.

Authors:  A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  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

7.  Radiological use of fast protons.

Authors:  R R WILSON
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1946-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  D Pflugfelder; J J Wilkens; U Oelfke
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-02-29       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Coverage optimized planning: probabilistic treatment planning based on dose coverage histogram criteria.

Authors:  J J Gordon; N Sayah; E Weiss; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Sensitivity of intensity modulated proton therapy plans to changes in patient weight.

Authors:  Francesca Albertini; Alessandra Bolsi; Antony J Lomax; Hans Peter Rutz; Beate Timmerman; Gudrun Goitein
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 6.280

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years?

Authors:  Hakan Nystrom; Maria Fuglsang Jensen; Petra Witt Nystrom
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Fraction-variant beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Daniel O'Connor; Dan Ruan; Wei Zou; Lei Dong; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  A Review of Proton Therapy - Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Precis Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-04-27

4.  A novel energy layer optimization framework for spot-scanning proton arc therapy.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Dan Ruan; Qihui Lyu; Wei Zou; Lei Dong; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Linear energy transfer weighted beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Dan Ruan; Wei Zou; Lei Dong; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Beam-Specific Spot Guidance and Optimization for PBS Proton Treatment of Bilateral Head and Neck Cancers.

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
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.