Dataset Information

Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers.

ABSTRACT: The clinical advantage of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may be diminished by range and patient setup uncertainties. We evaluated the effectiveness of robust optimization that incorporates uncertainties into the treatment planning optimization algorithm for treatment of base of skull cancers.We compared 2 IMPT planning methods for 10 patients with base of skull chordomas and chondrosarcomas: (1) conventional optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by creating a planning target volume (PTV); and (2) robust optimization, in which uncertainties are dealt with by optimizing individual spot weights without a PTV. We calculated root-mean-square deviation doses (RMSDs) for every voxel to generate RMSD volume histograms (RVHs). The area under the RVH curve was used for relative comparison of the 2 methods' plan robustness. Potential benefits of robust planning, in terms of target dose coverage and homogeneity and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using established clinical metrics. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged and compared with 2-sided paired t tests. The impact of tumor volume on the effectiveness of robust optimization was also analyzed.Relative to conventionally optimized plans, robustly optimized plans were less sensitive for both targets and OARs. In the nominal scenario, robust and conventional optimization resulted in similar D95% doses (D95% clinical target volume [CTV]: 63.3 and 64.8 Gy relative biologic effectiveness [RBE]), P <.01]) and D5%-D95% (D5%-D95% CTV: 8.0 and 7.1 Gy[RBE], [P <.01); irradiation of OARs was less with robust optimization (brainstem V60: 0.076 vs 0.26 cm(3) [P <.01], left temporal lobe V70: 0.22 vs 0.41 cm(3), [P = .068], right temporal lobe V70: 0.016 vs 0.11 cm(3), [P = .096], left cochlea Dmean: 28.1 vs 30.1 Gy[RBE], [P = .023], right cochlea Dmean: 23.7 vs 25.2 Gy[RBE], [P = .059]). Results in the worst-case scenario were analogous.Robust optimization is effective for creating clinically feasible IMPT plans for tumors of the base of skull.

SUBMITTER: Liu W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4238033 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers.

Liu Wei W Mohan Radhe R Park Peter P Liu Zhong Z Li Heng H Li Xiaoqiang X Li Yupeng Y Wu Richard R Sahoo Narayan N Dong Lei L Zhu X Ronald XR Grosshans David R DR

Practical radiation oncology 20140114 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>The clinical advantage of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may be diminished by range and patient setup uncertainties. We evaluated the effectiveness of robust optimization that incorporates uncertainties into the treatment planning optimization algorithm for treatment of base of skull cancers.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>We compared 2 IMPT planning methods for 10 patients with base of skull chordomas and chondrosarcomas: (1) conventional optimization, in which uncertai ...[more]

PMID: 25407859

Similar Datasets

Project description:Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to uncertainties in beam range and patient setup. Conventionally, these uncertainties are dealt using geometrically expanded planning target volume (PTV). In this paper, the authors evaluated a robust optimization method that deals with the uncertainties directly during the spot weight optimization to ensure clinical target volume (CTV) coverage without using PTV. The authors compared the two methods for a population of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients.Two sets of IMPT plans were generated for 14 H&N cases, one being PTV-based conventionally optimized and the other CTV-based robustly optimized. For the PTV-based conventionally optimized plans, the uncertainties are accounted for by expanding CTV to PTV via margins and delivering the prescribed dose to PTV. For the CTV-based robustly optimized plans, spot weight optimization was guided to reduce the discrepancy in doses under extreme setup and range uncertainties directly, while delivering the prescribed dose to CTV rather than PTV. For each of these plans, the authors calculated dose distributions under various uncertainty settings. The root-mean-square dose (RMSD) for each voxel was computed and the area under the RMSD-volume histogram curves (AUC) was used to relatively compare plan robustness. Data derived from the dose volume histogram in the worst-case and nominal doses were used to evaluate the plan optimality. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged over the 14 cases and were compared with two-sided paired t tests.CTV-based robust optimization led to more robust (i.e., smaller AUCs) plans for both targets and organs. Under the worst-case scenario and the nominal scenario, CTV-based robustly optimized plans showed better target coverage (i.e., greater D95%), improved dose homogeneity (i.e., smaller D5% - D95%), and lower or equivalent dose to organs at risk.CTV-based robust optimization provided significantly more robust dose distributions to targets and organs than PTV-based conventional optimization in H&N using IMPT. Eliminating the use of PTV and planning directly based on CTV provided better or equivalent normal tissue sparing.

Project description:PurposeTo predict the organ at risk (OAR) dose levels achievable with proton beam therapy (PBT), solely based on the geometric arrangement of the target volume in relation to the OARs. A comparison with an alternative therapy yields a prediction of the patient-specific benefits offered by PBT. This could enable physicians at hospitals without proton capabilities to make a better-informed referral decision or aid patient selection in model-based clinical trials.Methods and materialsSkull-base tumors were chosen to test the method, owing to their geometric complexity and multitude of nearby OARs. By exploiting the correlations between the dose and distance-to-target in existing PBT plans, the models were independently trained for 6 types of OARs: brainstem, cochlea, optic chiasm, optic nerve, parotid gland, and spinal cord. Once trained, the models could estimate the feasible dose-volume histogram and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) for OAR structures of new patients. The models were trained using 20 patients and validated using an additional 21 patients. Validation was achieved by comparing the predicted gEUD to that of the actual PBT plan.ResultsThe predicted and planned gEUD were in good agreement. Considering all OARs, the prediction error was +1.4 ± 5.1 Gy (mean ± standard deviation), and Pearson's correlation coefficient was 93%. By comparing with an intensity modulated photon treatment plan, the model could classify whether an OAR structure would experience a gain, with a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval: 87%-97%) and specificity of 63% (95% confidence interval: 38%-84%).ConclusionsWe trained and validated models that could quickly and accurately predict the patient-specific benefits of PBT for skull-base tumors. Similar models could be developed for other tumor sites. Such models will be useful when an estimation of the feasible benefits of PBT is desired but the experience and/or resources required for treatment planning are unavailable.

Project description:Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to range uncertainties and uncertainties caused by setup variation. The conventional inverse treatment planning of IMPT optimized based on the planning target volume (PTV) is not often sufficient to ensure robustness of treatment plans. In this paper, a method that takes the uncertainties into account during plan optimization is used to mitigate the influence of uncertainties in IMPT.The authors use the so-called "worst-case robust optimization" to render IMPT plans robust in the face of uncertainties. For each iteration, nine different dose distributions are computed-one each for ± setup uncertainties along anteroposterior (A-P), lateral (R-L) and superior-inferior (S-I) directions, for ± range uncertainty, and the nominal dose distribution. The worst-case dose distribution is obtained by assigning the lowest dose among the nine doses to each voxel in the clinical target volume (CTV) and the highest dose to each voxel outside the CTV. Conceptually, the use of worst-case dose distribution is similar to the dose distribution achieved based on the use of PTV in traditional planning. The objective function value for a given iteration is computed using this worst-case dose distribution. The objective function used has been extended to further constrain the target dose inhomogeneity.The worst-case robust optimization method is applied to a lung case, a skull base case, and a prostate case. Compared with IMPT plans optimized using conventional methods based on the PTV, our method yields plans that are considerably less sensitive to range and setup uncertainties. An interesting finding of the work presented here is that, in addition to reducing sensitivity to uncertainties, robust optimization also leads to improved optimality of treatment plans compared to the PTV-based optimization. This is reflected in reduction in plan scores and in the lower normal tissue doses for the same coverage of the target volume when subjected to uncertainties.The authors find that the worst-case robust optimization provides robust target coverage without sacrificing, and possibly even improving, the sparing of normal tissues. Our results demonstrate the importance of robust optimization. The authors assert that all IMPT plans should be robustly optimized.

Project description:PURPOSE:To investigate the consequences of residual setup error on target dose distribution using various image registration strategies for breast cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Among 11 post-lumpectomy patients who received IMPT, 44 dose distributions were computed. For each patient, the original plan (Plan-O) and three verification plans were calculated using different alignments: bony anatomy (VPlan-B), breast tissue (VPlan-T), and skin (VPlan-S). The target coverage were evaluated for each alignment technique. Additionally, 2 subvolumes-BreastNearSkin (1-cm rim of anterior CTV) and BreastNearCW (1-cm rim of posterior CTV)-were created to help localize CTV underdosing. Furthermore, we divided the setup error into the posture error and breast error. Patients with a large posture error and those with good posture setup but a large breast error were identified to evaluate the effect of posture error and breast error. RESULTS:For Plan-O, VPlan-B, VPlan-T, and VPlan-S, respectively, the median (interquartile range) breast CTV D95 was 95.7%(94.7-96.3%), 95.1% (93.9-95.7%), 95.2% (94.8-95.6%), and 95.2% (94.9-95.7%); BreastNearCW D95 was 96.9% (95.6-97.3%), 94.8% (93.5-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.1%); and BreastNearSkin D95 was 94.1% (92.7-94.4%), 93.6% (92.2-94.5%), 93.5% (92.4-94.5%), and 94.4% (92.2-94.5%) of the prescription dose. 4/11 patients had ?1% decrease in breast CTV D95, 1 of whom developed breast edema while the other 3 all had a?>?2o posture error. The CTV D95 variation was within 1% for the patients with good posture setup but >2o breast error. CONCLUSION:Acceptable target coverage was achieved with all three alignment strategies. Breast tissue and skin alignment maintained the breast target coverage marginally better than bony alignment, with which the posterior CTV along the chest wall is the predominant area affected by under-dosing. For target dose distribution, posture error appears more influential than breast error.

Project description:PurposeWhile intensity modulated proton therapy can deliver simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) with high precision, it is sensitive to anatomic changes. We investigated the dosimetric effects from these changes based on pretreatment cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) images and identified the most important factors using a multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPNN).Methods and materialsDILs were contoured based on coregistered multiparametric magnetic resonance images for 25 previously treated prostate cancer patients. SIB plans were created with (1) prostate clinical target volume - V70 Gy = 98%; (2) DIL - V98 Gy > 95%; and (3) all organs at risk (OARs)"?> within clinical constraints. SIB plans were applied to daily CBCT-based deformed planning computed tomography (CT)"?>. DIL - V98 Gy, bladder/rectum maximum dose (Dmax) and volume changes, femur shifts, and the distance from DIL to organs at riskOARs"?> in both planning computed tomogramsCT"?> and CBCT were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to compare the changes. MLPNNs were used to model the change in ΔDIL - V98 Gy > 10% and bladder/rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, and the relative importance factors for the model were provided. The performances of the models were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curves.ResultsComparing initial plan to the average from evaluation plans, respectively, DIL - V98 Gy was 89.3% ± 19.9% versus 86.2% ± 21.3% (P = .151); bladder Dmax 71.9 ± 0.6 Gy versus 74.5 ± 2.9 Gy (P < .001); and rectum Dmax 70.1 ± 2.4 Gy versus 74.9 ± 9.1Gy (P = .007). Bladder and rectal volumes were 99.6% ± 39.5% and 112.8% ± 27.2%, respectively, of their initial volume. The femur shift was 3.16 ± 2.52 mm. In the modeling of ΔDIL V98 Gy > 10%, DIL to rectum distance changes, DIL to bladder distance changes, and rectum volume changes ratio are the 3 most important factors. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.89, 1.00, and 0.99 for the modeling of ΔDIL - V98 Gy > 10%, and bladder and rectum Dmax > 80 Gy, respectively.ConclusionsDosimetric changes in DIL SIB with intensity modulated proton therapy can be modeled and classified based on anatomic changes on pretreatment images by an MLPNN.

Project description:PurposeThe goal of this study is to investigate treatment planning of total marrow irradiation (TMI) using intensity-modulated spot-scanning proton therapy (IMPT). The dosimetric parameters of the intensity-modulated proton plans were evaluated and compared with the corresponding TMI plans generated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using photon beams.MethodsIntensity-modulated proton plans for TMI were created using the Monte Carlo dose-calculation algorithm in the Raystation 11A treatment planning system with spot-scanning proton beams from the MEVION S250i Hyperscan system. Treatment plans were generated with four isocenters placed along the longitudinal direction, each with a set of five beams for a total of 20 beams. VMAT-TMI plans were generated with the Eclipse-V15 analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) using a Varian Trilogy machine. Three planning target volumes (PTVs) for the bones, ribs, and spleen were covered by 12 Gy. The dose conformity index, D80, D50, and D10, for PTVs and organs at risk (OARs) for the IMPT plans were quantified and compared with the corresponding VMAT plans.ResultsThe mean dose for most of the OARs was reduced substantially (5% and more) in the IMPT plans for TMI in comparison with VMAT plans except for the esophagus and thyroid, which experienced an increase in dose. This dose reduction is due to the fast dose falloff of the distal Bragg peak in the proton plans. The conformity index was found to be similar (0.78 vs 0.75) for the photon and proton plans. IMPT plans provided superior superficial dose coverage for the skull and ribs in comparison with VMAT because of increased entrance dose deposition by the proton beams.ConclusionTreatment plans for TMI generated with IMPT were superior to VMAT plans mainly due to a large reduction in the OAR dose. Although the current IMPT-TMI technique is not clinically practical due to the long overall treatment time, this study presents an enticing alternative to conventional TMI with photons by providing superior dose coverage of the targets, increased sparing of the OARs, and enhanced radiobiological effects associated with proton therapy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Esophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small-spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects. METHODS:35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small-spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase-averaged 4D-CT's. The dose-volume-histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose. RESULTS:In the nominal scenario, small-spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean , heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE] , liver V30Gy[RBE] , stomach V45Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean , V5Gy[RBE] , and V20Gy[RBE] , cord Dmax and D0.03cm3 , liver Dmean , heart V20Gy[RBE] , and V30Gy[RBE] , but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95% , D2cm3 , and D5% -D95% , CTVlow D95% , heart Dmean , and V40Gy[RBE] , requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small-spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered. CONCLUSIONS:Small-spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small-spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.

Dataset Information

Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers.

Publications

Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets