Macarena Cubillos-Mesías1, Esther G C Troost1,2,3,4,5, Fabian Lohaus1,3,4, Linda Agolli3, Maximilian Rehm3, Christian Richter1,2,3,4, Kristin Stützer1,2. 1. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany. 2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany. 3. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 4. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 5. National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Classical robust optimization (cRO) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) considers isocenter position and particle range uncertainties; anatomical robust optimization (aRO) aims to consider additional non-rigid positioning variations. This work compares the influence of different uncertainty sources on the robustness of cRO and aRO IMPT plans for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: Two IMPT plans were optimized for 20 HNSCC patients who received weekly control CTs (cCT): cRO, using solely the planning CT, and aRO, including 2 additional cCTs. The robustness of the plans in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing was analyzed considering stepwise the influence of (1) non-rigid anatomical variations given by the weekly cCT, (2) with fraction-wise added rigid random setup errors and (3) additional systematic proton range uncertainties. RESULTS: cRO plans presented significantly higher nominal CTV coverage but are outperformed by aRO plans when considering non-rigid anatomical variations only, as cRO and aRO plans presented a median target coverage (D98%) decrease for the low-risk/high-risk CTV of 1.8/1.1 percentage points (pp) and -0.2 pp/-0.3 pp, respectively. Setup and range uncertainties had larger influence on cRO CTV coverage, but led to similar OAR dose changes in both plans. Considering all error sources, 10/2 cRO/aRO patients missed the CTV coverage and a limited number exceeded some OAR constraints in both plans. CONCLUSION: Non-rigid anatomical variations are mainly responsible for critical target coverage loss of cRO plans, whereas the aRO approach was robust against such variations. Both plans provide similar robustness of OAR parameters. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The influence of different uncertainty sources was quantified for robust IMPT HNSCC plans.
OBJECTIVE: Classical robust optimization (cRO) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) considers isocenter position and particle range uncertainties; anatomical robust optimization (aRO) aims to consider additional non-rigid positioning variations. This work compares the influence of different uncertainty sources on the robustness of cRO and aRO IMPT plans for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: Two IMPT plans were optimized for 20 HNSCC patients who received weekly control CTs (cCT): cRO, using solely the planning CT, and aRO, including 2 additional cCTs. The robustness of the plans in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing was analyzed considering stepwise the influence of (1) non-rigid anatomical variations given by the weekly cCT, (2) with fraction-wise added rigid random setup errors and (3) additional systematic proton range uncertainties. RESULTS: cRO plans presented significantly higher nominal CTV coverage but are outperformed by aRO plans when considering non-rigid anatomical variations only, as cRO and aRO plans presented a median target coverage (D98%) decrease for the low-risk/high-risk CTV of 1.8/1.1 percentage points (pp) and -0.2 pp/-0.3 pp, respectively. Setup and range uncertainties had larger influence on cRO CTV coverage, but led to similar OAR dose changes in both plans. Considering all error sources, 10/2 cRO/aRO patients missed the CTV coverage and a limited number exceeded some OAR constraints in both plans. CONCLUSION: Non-rigid anatomical variations are mainly responsible for critical target coverage loss of cRO plans, whereas the aRO approach was robust against such variations. Both plans provide similar robustness of OAR parameters. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The influence of different uncertainty sources was quantified for robust IMPT HNSCC plans.
Authors: Steven van de Water; Francesca Albertini; Damien C Weber; Ben J M Heijmen; Mischa S Hoogeman; Antony J Lomax Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Peter C Park; Joey P Cheung; X Ronald Zhu; Andrew K Lee; Narayan Sahoo; Susan L Tucker; Wei Liu; Heng Li; Radhe Mohan; Laurence E Court; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-05-18 Impact factor: 7.038