Clinical implementation in proton therapy of multi-field optimization by a hybrid method combining conventional PTV with robust optimization

被引:16
作者
Tommasino, Francesco [1 ,2 ]
Widesott, Lamberto [3 ]
Fracchiolla, Francesco [3 ]
Lorentini, Stefano [3 ]
Righetto, Roberto [3 ]
Algranati, Carlo [3 ]
Scifoni, Emanuele [2 ]
Dionisi, Francesco [3 ]
Scartoni, Daniele [3 ]
Amelio, Dante [3 ]
Cianchetti, Marco [3 ]
Schwarz, Marco [2 ,3 ]
Amichetti, Maurizio [3 ]
Farace, Paolo [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Trento, Dept Phys, Via Sommar 14, I-38123 Povo, TN, Italy
[2] Ist Nazl Fis Nucl, Natl Inst Nucl Phys, TIFPA, Povo, Italy
[3] APSS, Protontherapy Dept, Trento, Italy
关键词
proton therapy; pencil beam scanning; Monte Carlo; RBE; robust optimization; IMPT; RELATIVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPLICATION PROBABILITY; PHOTON THERAPY; NECK-CANCER; UNCERTAINTIES; RANGE; HEAD; ALGORITHM; RADIATION; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6560/ab63b9
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
To implement a robust multi-field optimization (MFO) technique compatible with the application of a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm and to evaluate its robustness. Nine patients (three brain, five head-and-neck, one spine) underwent proton treatment generated by a novel robust MFO technique. A hybrid (hMFO) approach was implemented, planning dose coverage on isotropic PTV compensating for setup errors, whereas range calibration uncertainties are incorporated into PTV robust optimization process. hMFO was compared with single-field optimization (SFO) and full robust multi-field optimization (fMFO), both on the nominal plan and the worst-case scenarios assessed by robustness analysis. The SFO and the fMFO plans were normalized to hMFO on CTV to obtain iso-D95 coverage, and then the organs at risk (OARs) doses were compared. On the same OARs, in the normalized nominal plans the potential impact of variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was investigated. hMFO reduces the number of scenarios computed for robust optimization (from twenty-one in fMFO to three), making it practicable with the application of a MC algorithm. After normalizing on D95 CTV coverage, nominal hMFO plans were superior compared to SFO in terms of OARs sparing (p < 0.01), without significant differences compared to fMFO. The improvement in OAR sparing with hMFO with respect to SFO was preserved in worst-case scenarios (p < 0.01), confirming that hMFO is as robust as SFO to physical uncertainties, with no significant differences when compared to the worst case scenarios obtained by fMFO. The dose increase on OARs due to variable RBE was comparable to the increase due to physical uncertainties (i.e. 4-5 Gy(RBE)), but without significant differences between these techniques. hMFO allows improving plan quality with respect to SFO, with no significant differences with fMFO and without affecting robustness to setup, range and RBE uncertainties, making clinically feasible the application of MC-based robust optimization.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 38 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]  
[Anonymous], 2007, J. ICRU, V7, P1, DOI [10.1093/jicrundm021, DOI 10.1093/JICRUNDM021, 10.1093/jicru/ndm022, DOI 10.1093/JICRU/NDM021]
[3]   Comparison of organ-at-risk sparing and plan robustness for spot-scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc photon therapy in head-and-neck cancer [J].
Barten, Danique L. J. ;
Tol, Jim P. ;
Dahele, Max ;
Slotman, Ben J. ;
Verbakel, Wilko F. A. R. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (11) :6589-6598
[4]   Late toxicity following craniospinal radiation for early-stage medulloblastoma [J].
Christopherson, Kaitlin M. ;
Rotondo, Ronny L. ;
Bradley, Julie A. ;
Pincus, David W. ;
Wynn, Tung T. ;
Fort, John A. ;
Morris, Christopher G. ;
Mendenhall, Nancy P. ;
Marcus, Robert B., Jr. ;
Indelicato, Daniel J. .
ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 2014, 53 (04) :471-480
[5]   Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes [J].
Cubillos-Mesias, Macarena ;
Baumann, Michael ;
Troost, Esther G. C. ;
Lohaus, Fabian ;
Loeck, Steffen ;
Richter, Christian ;
Stuetzer, Kristin .
RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2017, 12
[6]   Proton beams in cancer treatments: Clinical outcomes and dosimetric comparisons with photon therapy [J].
Doyen, Jerome ;
Falk, Alexander Tuan ;
Floquet, Vincent ;
Herault, Joel ;
Hannoun-Levi, Jean-Michel .
CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS, 2016, 43 :104-112
[7]   Supine craniospinal irradiation in pediatric patients by proton pencil beam scanning [J].
Farace, Paolo ;
Bizzocchi, Nicola ;
Righetto, Roberto ;
Fellin, Francesco ;
Fracchiolla, Francesco ;
Lorentini, Stefano ;
Widesott, Lamberto ;
Algranati, Carlo ;
Rombi, Barbara ;
Vennarini, Sabina ;
Amichetti, Maurizio ;
Schwarz, Marco .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2017, 123 (01) :112-118
[8]   A pre-absorber optimization technique for pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments [J].
Fracchiolla, Francesco ;
Fellin, Francesco ;
Innocenzi, Marta ;
Lipparini, Mirko ;
Lorentini, Stefano ;
Widesott, Lamberto ;
Farace, Paolo ;
Schwarz, Marco .
PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 57 :145-152
[9]   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
[10]   Can differences in linear energy transfer and thus relative biological effectiveness compromise the dosimetric advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy as compared to passively scattered proton therapy? [J].
Giantsoudi, Drosoula ;
Adams, Judith ;
MacDonald, Shannon ;
Paganetti, Harald .
ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 2018, 57 (09) :1259-1264