Maximizing the probability of satisfying the clinical goals in radiation therapy treatment planning under setup uncertainty.

PURPOSE This paper introduces a method that maximizes the probability of satisfying the clinical goals in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments subject to setup uncertainty. METHODS The authors perform robust optimization in which the clinical goals are constrained to be satisfied whenever the setup error falls within an uncertainty set. The shape of the uncertainty set is included as a variable in the optimization. The goal of the optimization is to modify the shape of the uncertainty set in order to maximize the probability that the setup error will fall within the modified set. Because the constraints enforce the clinical goals to be satisfied under all setup errors within the uncertainty set, this is equivalent to maximizing the probability of satisfying the clinical goals. This type of robust optimization is studied with respect to photon and proton therapy applied to a prostate case and compared to robust optimization using an a priori defined uncertainty set. RESULTS Slight reductions of the uncertainty sets resulted in plans that satisfied a larger number of clinical goals than optimization with respect to a priori defined uncertainty sets, both within the reduced uncertainty sets and within the a priori, nonreduced, uncertainty sets. For the prostate case, the plans taking reduced uncertainty sets into account satisfied 1.4 (photons) and 1.5 (protons) times as many clinical goals over the scenarios as the method taking a priori uncertainty sets into account. CONCLUSIONS Reducing the uncertainty sets enabled the optimization to find better solutions with respect to the errors within the reduced as well as the nonreduced uncertainty sets and thereby achieve higher probability of satisfying the clinical goals. This shows that asking for a little less in the optimization sometimes leads to better overall plan quality.

[1]  J. Siebers,et al.  Coverage-based treatment planning: optimizing the IMRT PTV to meet a CTV coverage criterion. , 2009, Medical physics.

[2]  Michael A. Saunders,et al.  SNOPT: An SQP Algorithm for Large-Scale Constrained Optimization , 2005, SIAM Rev..

[3]  John N Tsitsiklis,et al.  A robust approach to IMRT optimization , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  Marnix G Witte,et al.  Probabilistic objective functions for margin-less IMRT planning , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  E Weiss,et al.  Coverage optimized planning: probabilistic treatment planning based on dose coverage histogram criteria. , 2010, Medical physics.

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  M Alber,et al.  Robust optimization based upon statistical theory. , 2010, Medical physics.

[9]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  Inverse planning for photon and proton beams. , 2001, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

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

[11]  Andrew Jackson,et al.  A new method of incorporating systematic uncertainties in intensity-modulated radiotherapy optimization. , 2005, Medical physics.

[12]  Philipp Hennig,et al.  Analytical probabilistic modeling for radiation therapy treatment planning , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[14]  M. Herk Errors and margins in radiotherapy. , 2004 .

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

[16]  Vitali Moiseenko,et al.  PTV margin for dose‐escalated radiation therapy of prostate cancer with daily online realignment using internal fiducial markers: Monte Carlo approach and dose population histogram (DPH) analysis , 2006, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[17]  Rasmus Bokrantz,et al.  A critical evaluation of worst case optimization methods for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy planning. , 2014, Medical physics.

[18]  John N Tsitsiklis,et al.  Optimal margin and edge-enhanced intensity maps in the presence of motion and uncertainty , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  A J Lomax,et al.  Advantages and limitations of the ‘worst case scenario’ approach in IMPT treatment planning , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  Jeffrey V Siebers,et al.  Comparisons of treatment optimization directly incorporating random patient setup uncertainty with a margin-based approach. , 2009, Medical physics.