Statistical assessment of proton treatment plans under setup and range uncertainties.

PURPOSE To evaluate a method for quantifying the effect of setup errors and range uncertainties on dose distribution and dose-volume histogram using statistical parameters; and to assess existing planning practice in selected treatment sites under setup and range uncertainties. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty passively scattered proton lung cancer plans, 10 prostate, and 1 brain cancer scanning-beam proton plan(s) were analyzed. To account for the dose under uncertainties, we performed a comprehensive simulation in which the dose was recalculated 600 times per given plan under the influence of random and systematic setup errors and proton range errors. On the basis of simulation results, we determined the probability of dose variations and calculated the expected values and standard deviations of dose-volume histograms. The uncertainties in dose were spatially visualized on the planning CT as a probability map of failure to target coverage or overdose of critical structures. RESULTS The expected value of target coverage under the uncertainties was consistently lower than that of the nominal value determined from the clinical target volume coverage without setup error or range uncertainty, with a mean difference of -1.1% (-0.9% for breath-hold), -0.3%, and -2.2% for lung, prostate, and a brain cases, respectively. The organs with most sensitive dose under uncertainties were esophagus and spinal cord for lung, rectum for prostate, and brain stem for brain cancer. CONCLUSIONS A clinically feasible robustness plan analysis tool based on direct dose calculation and statistical simulation has been developed. Both the expectation value and standard deviation are useful to evaluate the impact of uncertainties. The existing proton beam planning method used in this institution seems to be adequate in terms of target coverage. However, structures that are small in volume or located near the target area showed greater sensitivity to uncertainties.

[1]  A. Lomax,et al.  Is it necessary to plan with safety margins for actively scanned proton therapy? , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Francisco Cutanda Henríquez,et al.  A novel method for the evaluation of uncertainty in dose-volume histogram computation. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Joe Y. Chang,et al.  4D Proton treatment planning strategy for mobile lung tumors. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  Michael Gillin,et al.  Verification of patient-specific dose distributions in proton therapy using a commercial two-dimensional ion chamber array. , 2010, Medical physics.

[6]  Thomas Bortfeld,et al.  Visualization of a variety of possible dosimetric outcomes in radiation therapy using dose-volume histogram bands. , 2012, Practical radiation oncology.

[7]  Joseph O Deasy,et al.  CERR: a computational environment for radiotherapy research. , 2003, Medical physics.

[8]  Hanne M Kooy,et al.  Target volume dose considerations in proton beam treatment planning for lung tumors. , 2005, Medical physics.

[9]  A J Lomax,et al.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  U Oelfke,et al.  Simulation and visualization of dose uncertainties due to interfractional organ motion. , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Laurence Court,et al.  Fast range-corrected proton dose approximation method using prior dose distribution , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.