Dataset Information

Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes.

ABSTRACT: Proton beam therapy is promising for the treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC), but it is sensitive to uncertainties in patient positioning and particle range. Studies have shown that the planning target volume (PTV) concept may not be sufficient to ensure robustness of the target coverage. A few planning studies have considered irradiation of unilateral HNC targets with protons, but they have only taken into account the dose on the nominal plan, without considering anatomy changes occurring during the treatment course.Four pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy plans were calculated for 8 HNC patients with unilateral target volumes: single-field (SFO) and multi-field optimized (MFO) plans, either using the PTV concept or clinical target volume (CTV)-based robust optimization. The dose was recalculated on computed tomography (CT) scans acquired during the treatment course. Doses to target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were compared for the nominal plans, cumulative doses considering anatomical changes, and additional setup and range errors in each fraction. If required, the treatment plan was adapted, and the dose was compared with the non-adapted plan.All nominal plans fulfilled the clinical specifications for target coverage, but significantly higher doses on the ipsilateral parotid gland were found for both SFO approaches. MFO PTV-based plans had the lowest robustness against range and setup errors. During the treatment course, the influence of the anatomical variation on the dose has shown to be patient specific, mostly independent of the chosen planning approach. Nine plans in four patients required adaptation, which led to a significant improvement of the target coverage and a slight reduction in the OAR dose in comparison to the cumulative dose without adaptation.The use of robust MFO optimization is recommended for ensuring plan robustness and reduced doses in the ipsilateral parotid gland. Anatomical changes occurring during the treatment course might degrade the target coverage and increase the dose in the OARs, independent of the chosen planning approach. For some patients, a plan adaptation may be required.

SUBMITTER: Cubillos-Mesias M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5706329 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes.

Cubillos-Mesías Macarena M Baumann Michael M Troost Esther G C EGC Lohaus Fabian F Löck Steffen S Richter Christian C Stützer Kristin K

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20171128 1

<h4>Background</h4>Proton beam therapy is promising for the treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC), but it is sensitive to uncertainties in patient positioning and particle range. Studies have shown that the planning target volume (PTV) concept may not be sufficient to ensure robustness of the target coverage. A few planning studies have considered irradiation of unilateral HNC targets with protons, but they have only taken into account the dose on the nominal plan, without considering anatomy ...[more]

PMID: 29183377

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:Robust optimization leads to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans that are less sensitive to uncertainties and superior in terms of organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing, target dose coverage, and homogeneity compared to planning target volume (PTV)-based optimized plans. Robust optimization incorporates setup and range uncertainties, which implicitly adds margins to both targets and OARs and is also able to compensate for perturbations in dose distributions within targets and OARs caused by uncertainties. In contrast, the traditional PTV-based optimization considers only setup uncertainties and adds a margin only to targets but no margins to the OARs. It also ignores range uncertainty. The purpose of this work is to determine if robustly optimized plans are superior to PTV-based plans simply because the latter do not assign margins to OARs during optimization.The authors retrospectively selected from their institutional database five patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer and one with prostate cancer for this analysis. Using their original images and prescriptions, the authors created new IMPT plans using three methods: PTV-based optimization, optimization based on the PTV and planning risk volumes (PRVs) (i.e., "PTV+PRV-based optimization"), and robust optimization using the "worst-case" dose distribution. The PRVs were generated by uniformly expanding OARs by 3 mm for the H&N cases and 5 mm for the prostate case. The dose-volume histograms (DVHs) from the worst-case dose distributions were used to assess and compare plan quality. Families of DVHs for each uncertainty for all structures of interest were plotted along with the nominal DVHs. The width of the "bands" of DVHs was used to quantify the plan sensitivity to uncertainty.Compared with conventional PTV-based and PTV+PRV-based planning, robust optimization led to a smaller bandwidth for the targets in the face of uncertainties {clinical target volume [CTV] bandwidth: 0.59 [robust], 3.53 [PTV+PRV], and 3.53 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}. It also resulted in higher doses to 95% of the CTV {D(95%): 60.8 [robust] vs 59.3 [PTV+PRV] vs 59.6 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}, smaller D(5%) (doses to 5% of the CTV) minus D(95%) {D(5%) - D(95%): 13.2 [robust] vs 17.5 [PTV+PRV] vs 17.2 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}. At the same time, the robust optimization method irradiated OARs less {maximum dose to 1 cm(3) of the brainstem: 48.3 [robust] vs 48.8 [PTV+PRV] vs 51.2 [PTV] Gy (RBE); mean dose to the oral cavity: 22.3 [robust] vs 22.9 [PTV+PRV] vs 26.1 [PTV] Gy (RBE); maximum dose to 1% of the normal brain: 66.0 [robust] vs 68.0 [PTV+PRV] vs 69.3 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}.For H&N cases studied, OAR sparing in PTV+PRV-based optimization was inferior compared to robust optimization but was superior compared to PTV-based optimization; however, target dose robustness and homogeneity were comparable in the PTV+PRV-based and PTV-based optimizations. The same pattern held for the prostate case. The authors' data suggest that the superiority of robust optimization is not due simply to its inclusion of margins for OARs, but that this is due mainly to the ability of robust optimization to compensate for perturbations in dose distributions within target volumes and normal tissues caused by uncertainties.

Project description:Background:Proton pencil beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms have limited accuracy within heterogeneous tissues of lung cancer patients, which may be addressed by modern commercial Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms. We investigated clinical pencil beam scanning (PBS) dose differences between PB and MC-based treatment planning for lung cancer patients. Methods:With IRB approval, a comparative dosimetric analysis between RayStation MC and PB dose engines was performed on ten patient plans. PBS gantry plans were generated using single-field optimization technique to maintain target coverage under range and setup uncertainties. Dose differences between PB-optimized (PBopt), MC-recalculated (MCrecalc), and MC-optimized (MCopt) plans were recorded for the following region-of-interest metrics: clinical target volume (CTV) V95, CTV homogeneity index (HI), total lung V20, total lung VRX (relative lung volume receiving prescribed dose or higher), and global maximum dose. The impact of PB-based and MC-based planning on robustness to systematic perturbation of range (±3% density) and setup (±3 mm isotropic) was assessed. Pairwise differences in dose parameters were evaluated through non-parametric Friedman and Wilcoxon sign-rank testing. Results:In this ten-patient sample, CTV V95 decreased significantly from 99-100% for PBopt to 77-94% for MCrecalc and recovered to 99-100% for MCopt (P<10-5). The median CTV HI (D95/D5) decreased from 0.98 for PBopt to 0.91 for MCrecalc and increased to 0.95 for MCopt (P<10-3). CTV D95 robustness to range and setup errors improved under MCopt (?D95 =-1%) compared to MCrecalc (?D95 =-6%, P=0.006). No changes in lung dosimetry were observed for large volumes receiving low to intermediate doses (e.g., V20), while differences between PB-based and MC-based planning were noted for small volumes receiving high doses (e.g., VRX). Global maximum patient dose increased from 106% for PBopt to 109% for MCrecalc and 112% for MCopt (P<10-3). Conclusions:MC dosimetry revealed a reduction in target dose coverage under PB-based planning that was regained under MC-based planning along with improved plan robustness. MC-based optimization and dose calculation should be integrated into clinical planning workflows of lung cancer patients receiving actively scanned proton therapy.

Dataset Information

Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes.

Publications

Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure