Suliana Teoh1,2, Ben George1,2, Francesca Fiorini1,3, Katherine A Vallis1,2, Frank Van den Heuvel1,2. 1. CRUK and MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Old Road Campus Research Building, Off Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK. 2. Department of Radiotherapy, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK. 3. Rutherford Cancer Centre Thames Valley, 3 Collegiate Square, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9LH, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the sensitivity of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to setup uncertainties in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using probabilistic scenarios. METHODS: Minimax robust (MM) and planning target volume (PTV) optimised IMPT and VMAT nominal plans were created with physical dose of 70 Gy in 35 fractions in 10 representative patients. Using population data of setup errors, a fractionated treatment course was simulated, summed (Dsum) and compared to the nominal plan. Three treatment-course simulations were done for each plan. Target robustness criteria were: dose deviation of ≤5% to clinical target volume (CTV) D98% and CTV V95% ≥ 99.9%. Voxelwise simulation repeatability was analysed using Bland-Altman plots. Acceptable limits of agreement were 2% of the prescription dose. RESULTS: All Dsum met target robustness criteria. While fraction VMAT and MM-IMPT doses were excellent, simulated fraction doses in PTV-IMPT were suboptimal. Almost all (>99%) of VMAT and MM-IMPT fraction doses met both target robustness criteria. For PTV-IMPT, only 96.9 and 80.3% of fractions met CTVD98% and V95% criteria respectively. Simulation repeatability was excellent (limits of agreement range: 0.41-1.1 Gy) with strong positive correlations. CONCLUSION: When considering the whole treatment course, setup errors do not influence robustness irrespective of planning techniques used. However, on a fraction level, VMAT and MM-IMPT plans are superior compared to PTV-IMPT plans. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Probabilistic analysis provides a fast and practical method for evaluating VMAT and IMPT plan sensitivity against setup uncertainty. VMAT and robust-optimised IMPT plans have comparable sensitivity to setup uncertainties in conventionally fractionated treatment for NSCLC.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the sensitivity of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to setup uncertainties in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using probabilistic scenarios. METHODS: Minimax robust (MM) and planning target volume (PTV) optimised IMPT and VMAT nominal plans were created with physical dose of 70 Gy in 35 fractions in 10 representative patients. Using population data of setup errors, a fractionated treatment course was simulated, summed (Dsum) and compared to the nominal plan. Three treatment-course simulations were done for each plan. Target robustness criteria were: dose deviation of ≤5% to clinical target volume (CTV) D98% and CTV V95% ≥ 99.9%. Voxelwise simulation repeatability was analysed using Bland-Altman plots. Acceptable limits of agreement were 2% of the prescription dose. RESULTS: All Dsum met target robustness criteria. While fraction VMAT and MM-IMPT doses were excellent, simulated fraction doses in PTV-IMPT were suboptimal. Almost all (>99%) of VMAT and MM-IMPT fraction doses met both target robustness criteria. For PTV-IMPT, only 96.9 and 80.3% of fractions met CTVD98% and V95% criteria respectively. Simulation repeatability was excellent (limits of agreement range: 0.41-1.1 Gy) with strong positive correlations. CONCLUSION: When considering the whole treatment course, setup errors do not influence robustness irrespective of planning techniques used. However, on a fraction level, VMAT and MM-IMPT plans are superior compared to PTV-IMPT plans. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Probabilistic analysis provides a fast and practical method for evaluating VMAT and IMPT plan sensitivity against setup uncertainty. VMAT and robust-optimised IMPT plans have comparable sensitivity to setup uncertainties in conventionally fractionated treatment for NSCLC.
Authors: Kwok L Lam; Randall K Ten Haken; Dale Litzenberg; James M Balter; Stephen M Pollock Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-08-02 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Sebastian van der Voort; Steven van de Water; Zoltán Perkó; Ben Heijmen; Danny Lathouwers; Mischa Hoogeman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jens Wölfelschneider; Thomas Friedrich; Robert Lüchtenborg; Klemens Zink; Michael Scholz; Lei Dong; Marco Durante; Christoph Bert Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Sabine Visser; Hendrike Neh; Cássia Oraboni Ribeiro; Erik W Korevaar; Arturs Meijers; Björn Poppe; Nanna M Sijtsema; Stefan Both; Johannes A Langendijk; Christina T Muijs; Antje C Knopf Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 4.506