Superiority in Robustness of Multifield Optimization Over Single-Field Optimization for Pencil-Beam Proton Therapy for Oropharynx Carcinoma: An Enhanced Robustness Analysis.

PURPOSE To compare the difference in robustness of single-field optimized (SFO) and robust multifield optimized (rMFO) proton plans for oropharynx carcinoma patients by an improved robustness analysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS We generated rMFO proton plans for 11 patients with oropharynx carcinoma treated with SFO intensity modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost prescription. Doses from both planning approaches were compared for the initial plans and the worst cases from 20 optimization scenarios of setup errors and range uncertainties. Expected average dose distributions per range uncertainty were obtained by weighting the contributions from the respective scenarios with their expected setup error probability, and the spread of dose parameters for different range uncertainties were quantified. Using boundary dose distributions created from 56 combined setup error and range uncertainty scenarios and considering the vanishing influence of setup errors after 30 fractions, we approximated realistic worst-case values for the total treatment course. Error bar metrics derived from these boundary doses are reported for the clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). RESULTS The rMFO plans showed improved CTV coverage and homogeneity while simultaneously reducing the average mean dose to the constrictor muscles, larynx, and ipsilateral middle ear by 5.6 Gy, 2.0 Gy, and 3.9 Gy, respectively. We observed slightly larger differences during robustness evaluation, as well as a significantly higher average brainstem maximum and ipsilateral parotid mean dose for SFO plans. For rMFO plans, the range uncertainty-related spread in OAR dose parameters and many error bar metrics were found to be superior. The SFO plans showed a lower global maximum dose for single-scenario worst cases and a slightly lower mean oral cavity dose throughout. CONCLUSIONS An enhanced robustness analysis has been proposed and implemented into clinical systems. The benefit of better CTV coverage and OAR dose sparing in oropharynx carcinoma patients by rMFO compared with SFO proton plans is preserved in a robustness analysis with consideration of setup error and range uncertainty.

[1]  Martin Stuschke,et al.  Re-irradiation of recurrent head and neck carcinomas: comparison of robust intensity modulated proton therapy treatment plans with helical tomotherapy , 2013, Radiation Oncology.

[2]  G Janssens,et al.  Feasibility and robustness of dose painting by numbers in proton therapy with contour-driven plan optimization. , 2015, Medical physics.

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

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

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

[6]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  Selection of patients for radiotherapy with protons aiming at reduction of side effects: the model-based approach. , 2013, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[7]  J. Herault,et al.  Proton beams in cancer treatments: Clinical outcomes and dosimetric comparisons with photon therapy. , 2016, Cancer treatment reviews.

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

[9]  N. Burnet,et al.  Dose–volume population histogram: a new tool for evaluating plans whilst considering geometrical uncertainties , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  R. Mohan,et al.  Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice. , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  Hanne M Kooy,et al.  Dose uncertainties in IMPT for oropharyngeal cancer in the presence of anatomical, range, and setup errors. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  A. Lomax,et al.  Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Nancy Lee,et al.  Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: An update , 2007, Head & neck.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  Huifang Zhai,et al.  Supine craniospinal irradiation using a proton pencil beam scanning technique without match line changes for field junctions. , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  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.

[18]  J. Debus,et al.  Analysis of inter- and intrafraction accuracy of a commercial thermoplastic mask system used for image-guided particle radiation therapy , 2013, Journal of radiation research.

[19]  Arjen van der Schaaf,et al.  The potential of intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy to reduce swallowing dysfunction in the treatment of head and neck cancer: A planning comparative study , 2013, Acta oncologica.

[20]  Wei Liu,et al.  Preliminary evaluation of multifield and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer. , 2013, Medical physics.

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

[23]  Max Dahele,et al.  Comparison of organ-at-risk sparing and plan robustness for spot-scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc photon therapy in head-and-neck cancer. , 2015, Medical physics.

[24]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of radiotherapy in various head and neck cancers: comparing photons, carbon-ions and protons. , 2011, Cancer treatment reviews.

[25]  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.

[26]  A. Lomax,et al.  Evaluation of Robustness to Setup and Range Uncertainties for Head and Neck Patients Treated With Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy. , 2016, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

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

[29]  G. Lockwood,et al.  Cone-beam CT assessment of interfraction and intrafraction setup error of two head-and-neck cancer thermoplastic masks. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

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

[31]  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.

[32]  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.

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

[34]  C. Ainsley,et al.  Experimental characterization of two-dimensional pencil beam scanning proton spot profiles , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[35]  T. Solberg,et al.  Comparing proton treatment plans of pediatric brain tumors in two pencil beam scanning nozzles with different spot sizes , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[36]  T. Kataria,et al.  Homogeneity Index: An objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments , 2012, Journal of medical physics.

[37]  Johannes A Langendijk,et al.  The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: a systematic review of literature. , 2011, The oncologist.