Anatomical robust optimization to account for nasal cavity filling variation during intensity-modulated proton therapy: a comparison with conventional and adaptive planning strategies

被引:45
|
作者
van de Water, Steven [1 ]
Albertini, Francesca [2 ]
Weber, Damien C. [2 ,3 ]
Heijmen, Ben J. M. [1 ]
Hoogeman, Mischa S. [1 ]
Lomax, Antony J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus MC, Dept Radiat Oncol, Canc Inst, Groene Hilledijk 301, NL-3075 EA Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Paul Scherrer Inst, Ctr Proton Therapy, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
[3] Univ Hosp Bern, Dept Radiat Oncol, Bern, Switzerland
关键词
proton therapy; IMPT; robust optimization; adaptive radiotherapy; plan adaptation; nasal cavity filling; sinonasal tumors; OROPHARYNGEAL CANCER-PATIENTS; LONG-TERM OUTCOMES; TREATMENT UNCERTAINTIES; MOTION MANAGEMENT; PARANASAL SINUS; BEAM ANGLE; RADIOTHERAPY; IMRT; SENSITIVITY; MODEL;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6560/aa9c1c
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
The aim of this study is to develop an anatomical robust optimization method for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) that accounts for interfraction variations in nasal cavity filling, and to compare it with conventional single-field uniform dose (SFUD) optimization and online plan adaptation. We included CT data of five patients with tumors in the sinonasal region. Using the planning CT, we generated for each patient 25 'synthetic' CTs with varying nasal cavity filling. The robust optimization method available in our treatment planning system 'Erasmus-iCycle' was extended to also account for anatomical uncertainties by including (synthetic) CTs with varying patient anatomy as error scenarios in the inverse optimization. For each patient, we generated treatment plans using anatomical robust optimization and, for benchmarking, using SFUD optimization and online plan adaptation. Clinical target volume (CTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) doses were assessed by recalculating the treatment plans on the synthetic CTs, evaluating dose distributions individually and accumulated over an entire fractionated 50 Gy(RBE) treatment, assuming each synthetic CT to correspond to a 2 Gy(RBE) fraction. Treatment plans were also evaluated using actual repeat CTs. Anatomical robust optimization resulted in adequate CTV doses (V-95% >= 98% and V-107% <= 2%) if at least three synthetic CTs were included in addition to the planning CT. These CTV requirements were also fulfilled for online plan adaptation, but not for the SFUD approach, even when applying a margin of 5 mm. Compared with anatomical robust optimization, OAR dose parameters for the accumulated dose distributions were on average 5.9 Gy(RBE) (20%) higher when using SFUD optimization and on average 3.6 Gy(RBE) (18%) lower for online plan adaptation. In conclusion, anatomical robust optimization effectively accounted for changes in nasal cavity filling during IMPT, providing substantially improved CTV and OAR doses compared with conventional SFUD optimization. OAR doses can be further reduced by using online plan adaptation.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients
    Li, Heng
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    Park, Peter
    Liu, Wei
    Chang, Joe
    Liao, Zhongxing
    Frank, Steve
    Li, Yupeng
    Poenisch, Falk
    Mohan, Radhe
    Gillin, Michael
    Zhu, Ronald
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2015, 114 (03) : 367 - 372
  • [2] Deep learning-based multiple-CT optimization: An adaptive treatment planning approach to account for anatomical changes in intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancers
    Liu, Muyu
    Pang, Bo
    Chen, Shuoyan
    Zeng, Yiling
    Zhang, Qi
    Quan, Hong
    Chang, Yu
    Yang, Zhiyong
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2025, 202
  • [3] Multiple-CT optimization: An adaptive optimization method to account for anatomical changes in intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancers
    Yang, Zhiyong
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    Wang, Xianliang
    Zhu, Ronald
    Gunn, Brandon
    Frank, Steven J.
    Chang, Yu
    Li, Qin
    Yang, Kunyu
    Wu, Gang
    Liao, Li
    Li, Yupeng
    Chen, Mei
    Li, Heng
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2020, 142 : 124 - 132
  • [4] Robust optimization to reduce the impact of biological effect variation from physical uncertainties in intensity-modulated proton therapy
    Bai, Xuemin
    Lim, Gino
    Grosshans, David
    Mohan, Radhe
    Cao, Wenhua
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2019, 64 (02)
  • [5] A critical evaluation of worst case optimization methods for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy planning
    Fredriksson, Albin
    Bokrantz, Rasmus
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (08) : 48 - 58
  • [6] Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers
    Liu, Wei
    Frank, Steven J.
    Li, Xiaoqiang
    Li, Yupeng
    Park, Peter C.
    Dong, Lei
    Zhu, X. Ronald
    Mohan, Radhe
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (05)
  • [7] Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques
    Liu, Wei
    Li, Yupeng
    Li, Xiaoqiang
    Cao, Wenhua
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 39 (06) : 3089 - 3101
  • [8] Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy - Is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning?
    Wang, Xianliang
    Li, Heng
    Zhu, Xiaorong Ronald
    Hou, Qing
    Liao, Li
    Jiang, Bo
    Li, Yupeng
    Wang, Pei
    Lang, Jinyi
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 128 (01) : 167 - 173
  • [9] Selective robust optimization: A new intensity-modulated proton therapy optimization strategy
    Li, Yupeng
    Niemela, Perttu
    Liao, Li
    Jiang, Shengpeng
    Li, Heng
    Poenisch, Falk
    Zhu, X. Ronald
    Siljamaki, Sami
    Vanderstraeten, Reynald
    Sahoo, Narayan
    Gillin, Michael
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (08) : 4840 - 4847
  • [10] Robust beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy
    Gu, Wenbo
    Neph, Ryan
    Ruan, Dan
    Zou, Wei
    Dong, Lei
    Sheng, Ke
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (08) : 3356 - 3370