Dose uncertainties in IMPT for oropharyngeal cancer in the presence of anatomical, range, and setup errors.

PURPOSE Setup, range, and anatomical uncertainties influence the dose delivered with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), but clinical quantification of these errors for oropharyngeal cancer is lacking. We quantified these factors and investigated treatment fidelity, that is, robustness, as influenced by adaptive planning and by applying more beam directions. METHODS AND MATERIALS We used an in-house treatment planning system with multicriteria optimization of pencil beam energies, directions, and weights to create treatment plans for 3-, 5-, and 7-beam directions for 10 oropharyngeal cancer patients. The dose prescription was a simultaneously integrated boost scheme, prescribing 66 Gy to primary tumor and positive neck levels (clinical target volume-66 Gy; CTV-66 Gy) and 54 Gy to elective neck levels (CTV-54 Gy). Doses were recalculated in 3700 simulations of setup, range, and anatomical uncertainties. Repeat computed tomography (CT) scans were used to evaluate an adaptive planning strategy using nonrigid registration for dose accumulation. RESULTS For the recalculated 3-beam plans including all treatment uncertainty sources, only 69% (CTV-66 Gy) and 88% (CTV-54 Gy) of the simulations had a dose received by 98% of the target volume (D98%) >95% of the prescription dose. Doses to organs at risk (OARs) showed considerable spread around planned values. Causes for major deviations were mixed. Adaptive planning based on repeat imaging positively affected dose delivery accuracy: in the presence of the other errors, percentages of treatments with D98% >95% increased to 96% (CTV-66 Gy) and 100% (CTV-54 Gy). Plans with more beam directions were not more robust. CONCLUSIONS For oropharyngeal cancer patients, treatment uncertainties can result in significant differences between planned and delivered IMPT doses. Given the mixed causes for major deviations, we advise repeat diagnostic CT scans during treatment, recalculation of the dose, and if required, adaptive planning to improve adequate IMPT dose delivery.

[1]  Albin Fredriksson,et al.  A characterization of robust radiation therapy treatment planning methods-from expected value to worst case optimization. , 2012, Medical physics.

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

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

[4]  Hanne M Kooy,et al.  A case study in proton pencil-beam scanning delivery. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  Francesca Albertini,et al.  Sensitivity of intensity modulated proton therapy plans to changes in patient weight. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[6]  A. Lomax,et al.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer using an integrated CT/linear accelerator system. , 2004, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  Peter C Levendag,et al.  Time dependence of intrafraction patient motion assessed by repeat stereoscopic imaging. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  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.

[10]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  Using a reduced spot size for intensity-modulated proton therapy potentially improves salivary gland-sparing in oropharyngeal cancer. , 2012, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  M. Hoogeman,et al.  Local anatomic changes in parotid and submandibular glands during radiotherapy for oropharynx cancer and correlation with dose, studied in detail with nonrigid registration. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  Xiao Han,et al.  Clinical validation of atlas-based auto-segmentation of multiple target volumes and normal tissue (swallowing/mastication) structures in the head and neck. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Wei Chen,et al.  Including robustness in multi-criteria optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  M Goitein,et al.  A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  Xavier Geets,et al.  Adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. , 2010, Seminars in radiation oncology.

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

[17]  P. Levendag,et al.  Integrated multicriterial optimization of beam angles and intensity profiles for coplanar and noncoplanar head and neck IMRT and implications for VMAT. , 2012, Medical physics.

[18]  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.

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

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

[21]  Wei Liu,et al.  Uncertainty incorporated beam angle optimization for IMPT treatment planning. , 2012, Medical physics.

[22]  Nobuyuki Kanematsu,et al.  A robust algorithm of intensity modulated proton therapy for critical tissue sparing and target coverage , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  Ben J M Heijmen,et al.  iCycle: Integrated, multicriterial beam angle, and profile optimization for generation of coplanar and noncoplanar IMRT plans. , 2012, Medical physics.

[24]  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.

[25]  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.

[26]  Holly Ning,et al.  Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, adaptive radiotherapy, proton radiotherapy, and adaptive proton radiotherapy for treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[27]  M. V. van Herk,et al.  The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[28]  S van de Water,et al.  Improved efficiency of multi-criteria IMPT treatment planning using iterative resampling of randomly placed pencil beams. , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  N Hodapp,et al.  [The ICRU Report 83: prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)]. , 2012, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al].