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

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. 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). 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. 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.

Stützer K ，Lin A ，Kirk M ，Lin L ... -  《-》

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Kraan AC ，van de Water S ，Teguh DN ，Al-Mamgani A ，Madden T ，Kooy HM ，Heijmen BJ ，Hoogeman MS ... -  《-》

An Analysis of Plan Robustness for Esophageal Tumors: Comparing Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans and Spot Scanning Proton Planning.

Planning studies to compare x-ray and proton techniques and to select the most suitable technique for each patient have been hampered by the nonequivalence of several aspects of treatment planning and delivery. A fair comparison should compare similarly advanced delivery techniques from current clinical practice and also assess the robustness of each technique. The present study therefore compared volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and single-field optimization (SFO) spot scanning proton therapy plans created using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose escalation in midesophageal cancer and analyzed the effect of setup and range uncertainties on these plans. For 21 patients, SIB plans with a physical dose prescription of 2 Gy or 2.5 Gy/fraction in 25 fractions to planning target volume (PTV)50Gy or PTV62.5Gy (primary tumor with 0.5 cm margins) were created and evaluated for robustness to random setup errors and proton range errors. Dose-volume metrics were compared for the optimal and uncertainty plans, with P<.05 (Wilcoxon) considered significant. SFO reduced the mean lung dose by 51.4% (range 35.1%-76.1%) and the mean heart dose by 40.9% (range 15.0%-57.4%) compared with VMAT. Proton plan robustness to a 3.5% range error was acceptable. For all patients, the clinical target volume D98 was 95.0% to 100.4% of the prescribed dose and gross tumor volume (GTV) D98 was 98.8% to 101%. Setup error robustness was patient anatomy dependent, and the potential minimum dose per fraction was always lower with SFO than with VMAT. The clinical target volume D98 was lower by 0.6% to 7.8% of the prescribed dose, and the GTV D98 was lower by 0.3% to 2.2% of the prescribed GTV dose. The SFO plans achieved significant sparing of normal tissue compared with the VMAT plans for midesophageal cancer. The target dose coverage in the SIB proton plans was less robust to random setup errors and might be unacceptable for certain patients. Robust optimization to ensure adequate target coverage of SIB proton plans might be beneficial.

Warren S ，Partridge M ，Bolsi A ，Lomax AJ ，Hurt C ，Crosby T ，Hawkins MA ... -  《-》

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.

Barten DL ，Tol JP ，Dahele M ，Slotman BJ ，Verbakel WF ... -  《-》

Preliminary evaluation of multifield and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer.

Quan EM ，Liu W ，Wu R ，Li Y ，Frank SJ ，Zhang X ，Zhu XR ，Mohan R ... -  《-》