Analytical incorporation of fractionation effects in probabilistic treatment planning for intensity-modulated proton therapy

被引:11
作者
Wahl, Niklas [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hennig, Philipp [4 ]
Wieser, Hans-Peter [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Bangert, Mark [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] German Canc Res Ctr, Dept Med Phys Radiat Oncol, Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[2] Heidelberg Inst Radiat Oncol, Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[3] Heidelberg Univ, Fak Phys & Astron, Neuenheimer Feld 226, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[4] Max Planck Inst Intelligent Syst, Max Planck Ring 4, D-72076 Tubingen, Germany
[5] Heidelberg Univ, Med Fak Heidelberg, Neuenheimer Feld 672, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
fractionation; inverse planning; proton therapy; random and systematic errors; uncertainty; IMPT TREATMENT PLANS; ROBUST OPTIMIZATION; TREATMENT UNCERTAINTIES; PARTICLE THERAPY; SETUP; SENSITIVITY; RANGE;
D O I
10.1002/mp.12775
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PurposeWe show that it is possible to explicitly incorporate fractionation effects into closed-form probabilistic treatment plan analysis and optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with analytical probabilistic modeling (APM). We study the impact of different fractionation schemes on the dosimetric uncertainty induced by random and systematic sources of range and setup uncertainty for treatment plans that were optimized with and without consideration of the number of treatment fractions. MethodsThe APM framework is capable of handling arbitrarily correlated uncertainty models including systematic and random errors in the context of fractionation. On this basis, we construct an analytical dose variance computation pipeline that explicitly considers the number of treatment fractions for uncertainty quantitation and minimization during treatment planning. We evaluate the variance computation model in comparison to random sampling of 100 treatments for conventional and probabilistic treatment plans under different fractionation schemes (1, 5, 30 fractions) for an intracranial, a paraspinal and a prostate case. The impact of neglecting the fractionation scheme during treatment planning is investigated by applying treatment plans that were generated with probabilistic optimization for 1 fraction in a higher number of fractions and comparing them to the probabilistic plans optimized under explicit consideration of the number of fractions. ResultsAPM enables the construction of an analytical variance computation model for dose uncertainty considering fractionation at negligible computational overhead. It is computationally feasible (a) to simultaneously perform a robustness analysis for all possible fraction numbers and (b) to perform a probabilistic treatment plan optimization for a specific fraction number. The incorporation of fractionation assumptions for robustness analysis exposes a dose to uncertainty trade-off, i.e., the dose in the organs at risk is increased for a reduced fraction number and/or for more robust treatment plans. By explicit consideration of fractionation effects during planning, we demonstrate that it is possible to exploit this trade-off during optimization. APM optimization considering the fraction number reduced the dose in organs at risk compared to conventional probabilistic optimization neglecting the fraction number. ConclusionAPM enables computationally efficient incorporation of fractionation effects in probabilistic uncertainty analysis and probabilistic treatment plan optimization. The consideration of the fractionation scheme in probabilistic treatment planning reveals the trade-off between number of fractions, nominal dose, and treatment plan robustness.
引用
收藏
页码:1317 / 1328
页数:12
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   Is it necessary to plan with safety margins for actively scanned proton therapy? [J].
Albertini, F. ;
Hug, E. B. ;
Lomax, A. J. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 56 (14) :4399-4413
[2]   The influence of the optimization starting conditions on the robustness of intensity-modulated proton therapy plans [J].
Albertini, F. ;
Hug, E. B. ;
Lomax, A. J. .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2010, 55 (10) :2863-2878
[3]  
[Anonymous], J RISK, DOI DOI 10.2307/1165345
[4]   Analytical probabilistic modeling for radiation therapy treatment planning [J].
Bangert, Mark ;
Hennig, Philipp ;
Oelfke, Uwe .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2013, 58 (16) :5401-5419
[5]   Effects of motion on the total dose distribution [J].
Bortfeld, T ;
Jiang, SB ;
Rietzel, E .
SEMINARS IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2004, 14 (01) :41-51
[6]   A robust approach to IMRT optimization [J].
Chan, TCY ;
Bortfeld, T ;
Tsitsiklis, JN .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2006, 51 (10) :2567-2583
[7]   Robust optimization for intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning under uncertainty [J].
Chu, M ;
Zinchenko, Y ;
Henderson, SG ;
Sharpe, MB .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (23) :5463-5477
[8]   Treatment of pediatric patients and young adults with particle therapy at the Heidelberg Ion Therapy Center (HIT): establishment of workflow and initial clinical data [J].
Combs, Stephanie E. ;
Kessel, Kerstin A. ;
Herfarth, Klaus ;
Jensen, Alexandra ;
Oertel, Susanne ;
Blattmann, Claudia ;
Ecker, Swantje ;
Hoess, Angelika ;
Martin, Eike ;
Witt, Olaf ;
Jaekel, Oliver ;
Kulozik, Andreas E. ;
Debus, Juergen .
RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2012, 7
[9]   A characterization of robust radiation therapy treatment planning methods-from expected value to worst case optimization [J].
Fredriksson, Albin .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (08) :5169-5181
[10]   Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy [J].
Fredriksson, Albin ;
Forsgren, Anders ;
Hardemark, Bjorn .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (03) :1672-1684