Quantification of plan robustness against different uncertainty sources for classical and anatomical robust optimized treatment plans in head and neck cancer proton therapy.

OBJECTIVE Classical robust optimization (cRO) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) considers isocenter position and particle range uncertainties; anatomical robust optimization (aRO) aims to consider additional non-rigid positioning variations. This work compares the influence of different uncertainty sources on the robustness of cRO and aRO IMPT plans for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS Two IMPT plans were optimized for 20 HNSCC patients who received weekly control CTs (cCT): cRO, using solely the planning CT, and aRO, including 2 additional cCTs. The robustness of the plans in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing was analyzed considering stepwise the influence of (1) non-rigid anatomical variations given by the weekly cCT, (2) with fraction-wise added rigid random setup errors and (3) additional systematic proton range uncertainties. RESULTS cRO plans presented significantly higher nominal CTV coverage but are outperformed by aRO plans when considering non-rigid anatomical variations only, as cRO and aRO plans presented a median target coverage (D98%) decrease for the low-risk/high-risk CTV of 1.8/1.1 percentage points (pp) and -0.2 pp/-0.3 pp, respectively. Setup and range uncertainties had larger influence on cRO CTV coverage, but led to similar OAR dose changes in both plans. Considering all error sources, 10/2 cRO/aRO patients missed the CTV coverage and a limited number exceeded some OAR constraints in both plans. CONCLUSION Non-rigid anatomical variations are mainly responsible for critical target coverage loss of cRO plans, whereas the aRO approach was robust against such variations. Both plans provide similar robustness of OAR parameters. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE The influence of different uncertainty sources was quantified for robust IMPT HNSCC plans.

[1]  Erik W. Korevaar,et al.  Robust Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Increases Estimated Clinical Benefit in Head and Neck Cancer Patients , 2016, PloS one.

[2]  Stina Svensson,et al.  The ANACONDA algorithm for deformable image registration in radiotherapy. , 2014, Medical physics.

[3]  Jan-Jakob Sonke,et al.  Setup uncertainties of anatomical sub-regions in head-and-neck cancer patients after offline CBCT guidance. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  Kristin Stützer,et al.  Superiority in Robustness of Multifield Optimization Over Single-Field Optimization for Pencil-Beam Proton Therapy for Oropharynx Carcinoma: An Enhanced Robustness Analysis. , 2017, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers. , 2013, Medical physics.

[6]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  Potential benefits of scanned intensity-modulated proton therapy versus advanced photon therapy with regard to sparing of the salivary glands in oropharyngeal cancer. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  Steven J Frank,et al.  PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization. , 2013, Medical physics.

[8]  U Oelfke,et al.  Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  K. Brock,et al.  Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 132 , 2017, Medical physics.

[10]  Heng Li,et al.  Selective robust optimization: A new intensity-modulated proton therapy optimization strategy. , 2015, Medical physics.

[11]  Francesca Albertini,et al.  Incorporating the effect of fractionation in the evaluation of proton plan robustness to setup errors , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Wei Liu,et al.  Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients. , 2015, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. , 2012, Medical physics.

[14]  A Fogliata,et al.  A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumours. , 2001, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[15]  C. Xie,et al.  Integral dose in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and helical tomotherapy. , 2009, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[16]  Christian Richter,et al.  Inter-centre variability of CT-based stopping-power prediction in particle therapy: Survey-based evaluation , 2018, Physics and imaging in radiation oncology.

[17]  Xiaodong Zhang,et al.  Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy - Is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning? , 2017, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[18]  Thomas Bortfeld,et al.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning. , 2008, Medical physics.

[19]  Steffen Löck,et al.  Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes , 2017, Radiation Oncology.

[20]  Abrahim Al-Mamgani,et al.  The price of robustness; impact of worst-case optimization on organ-at-risk dose and complication probability in intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients. , 2016, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[21]  E. Pedroni,et al.  Intensity modulated proton therapy: a clinical example. , 2001, Medical physics.

[22]  Wei Liu,et al.  Statistical assessment of proton treatment plans under setup and range uncertainties. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  Uwe Schneider,et al.  Intensity modulated photon and proton therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors. , 2006, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[24]  Christian Richter,et al.  Including anatomical variations in robust optimization for head and neck proton therapy can reduce the need of adaptation. , 2019, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[25]  Anders Forsgren,et al.  Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy. , 2011, Medical physics.

[26]  Steffen Löck,et al.  Evaluation of a deformable registration algorithm for subsequent lung computed tomography imaging during radiochemotherapy. , 2016, Medical physics.

[27]  Steffen Löck,et al.  Identification of Patient Benefit From Proton Therapy for Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Patients Based on Individual and Subgroup Normal Tissue Complication Probability Analysis. , 2015, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[28]  Danny Lathouwers,et al.  Robustness Recipes for Minimax Robust Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients. , 2016, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[29]  Francesca Albertini,et al.  Anatomical robust optimization to account for nasal cavity filling variation during intensity-modulated proton therapy: a comparison with conventional and adaptive planning strategies , 2018, Physics in medicine and biology.