A critical evaluation of worst case optimization methods for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy planning.

PURPOSE To critically evaluate and compare three worst case optimization methods that have been previously employed to generate intensity-modulated proton therapy treatment plans that are robust against systematic errors. The goal of the evaluation is to identify circumstances when the methods behave differently and to describe the mechanism behind the differences when they occur. METHODS The worst case methods optimize plans to perform as well as possible under the worst case scenario that can physically occur (composite worst case), the combination of the worst case scenarios for each objective constituent considered independently (objectivewise worst case), and the combination of the worst case scenarios for each voxel considered independently (voxelwise worst case). These three methods were assessed with respect to treatment planning for prostate under systematic setup uncertainty. An equivalence with probabilistic optimization was used to identify the scenarios that determine the outcome of the optimization. RESULTS If the conflict between target coverage and normal tissue sparing is small and no dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints are present, then all three methods yield robust plans. Otherwise, they all have their shortcomings: Composite worst case led to unnecessarily low plan quality in boundary scenarios that were less difficult than the worst case ones. Objectivewise worst case generally led to nonrobust plans. Voxelwise worst case led to overly conservative plans with respect to DVH constraints, which resulted in excessive dose to normal tissue, and less sharp dose fall-off than the other two methods. CONCLUSIONS The three worst case methods have clearly different behaviors. These behaviors can be understood from which scenarios that are active in the optimization. No particular method is superior to the others under all circumstances: composite worst case is suitable if the conflicts are not very severe or there are DVH constraints whereas voxelwise worst case is advantageous if there are severe conflicts but no DVH constraints. The advantages of composite and voxelwise worst case outweigh those of objectivewise worst case.

[1]  Timothy C Y Chan,et al.  Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[3]  Martin Stuschke,et al.  Potentials of robust intensity modulated scanning proton plans for locally advanced lung cancer in comparison to intensity modulated photon plans. , 2012, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

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

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

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

[7]  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.

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

[9]  Gudrun Goitein,et al.  The clinical potential of intensity modulated proton therapy. , 2004, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[10]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

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

[12]  E. W. Shrigley.  Medical Physics , 1944, British medical journal.

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

[14]  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.

[15]  Timothy C. Y. Chan,et al.  Optimization under uncertainty in radiation therapy , 2007 .

[16]  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.

[17]  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.

[18]  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.