Robust optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with soft spot sensitivity regularization.

Proton dose distribution is sensitive to uncertainties in range estimation and patient positioning. Currently, the proton robustness is managed by worst-case scenario optimization methods, which are computationally inefficient. To overcome these challenges, we develop a novel intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization method that integrates dose fidelity with a sensitivity term that describes dose perturbation as the result of range and positioning uncertainties. In the integrated optimization framework, the optimization cost function is formulated to include two terms: a dose fidelity term and a robustness term penalizing the inner product of the scanning spot sensitivity and intensity. The sensitivity of an IMPT scanning spot to perturbations is defined as the dose distribution variation induced by range and positioning errors. To evaluate the sensitivity, the spatial gradient of the dose distribution of a specific spot is first calculated. The spot sensitivity is then determined by the total absolute value of the directional gradients of all affected voxels. The fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm is used to solve the optimization problem. This method was tested on three skull base tumor (SBT) patients and three bilateral head-and-neck (H&N) patients. The proposed sensitivity-regularized method (SenR) was implemented on both clinic target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). They were compared with conventional PTV-based optimization method (Conv) and CTV-based voxel-wise worst-case scenario optimization approach (WC). Under the nominal condition without uncertainties, the three methods achieved similar CTV dose coverage, while the CTV-based SenR approach better spared organs at risks (OARs) compared with the WC approach, with an average reduction of [Dmean, Dmax] of [4.72, 3.38]  GyRBE for the SBT cases and [2.54, 3.33] GyRBE for the H&N cases. The OAR sparing of the PTV-based SenR method was comparable with the WC method. The WC method, and SenR approaches all improved the plan robustness from the conventional PTV-based method. On average, under range uncertainties, the lowest [D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [93.75%, 88.47%, 47.37%] in the Conv method, to [99.28%, 99.51%, 86.64%] in the WC method, [97.71%, 97.85%, 81.65%] in the SenR-CTV method and [98.77%, 99.30%, 85.12%] in the SenR-PTV method, respectively. Under setup uncertainties, the average lowest [D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [95.35%, 94.92%, 65.12%] in the Conv method, to [99.43%, 99.63%, 87.12%] in the WC method, [96.97%, 97.13%, 77.86%] in the SenR-CTV method, and [98.21%, 98.34%, 83.88%] in the SenR-PTV method, respectively. The runtime of the SenR optimization is eight times shorter than that of the voxel-wise worst-case method. We developed a novel computationally efficient robust optimization method for IMPT. The robustness is calculated as the spot sensitivity to both range and shift perturbations. The dose fidelity term is then regularized by the sensitivity term for the flexibility and trade-off between the dosimetry and the robustness. In the stress test, SenR is more resilient to unexpected uncertainties. These advantages in combination with its fast computation time make it a viable candidate for clinical IMPT planning.

Gu W ，Ruan D ，O'Connor D ，Zou W ，Dong L ，Tsai MY ，Jia X ，Sheng K ... -  《-》

Robust beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Dose conformality and robustness are equally important in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Despite the obvious implication of beam orientation on both dosimetry and robustness, an automated, robust beam orientation optimization algorithm has not been incorporated due to the problem complexity and paramount computational challenge. In this study, we developed a novel IMPT framework that integrates robust beam orientation optimization (BOO) and robust fluence map optimization (FMO) in a unified framework. The unified framework is formulated to include a dose fidelity term, a heterogeneity-weighted group sparsity term, and a sensitivity regularization term. The L2, 1/2-norm group sparsity is used to reduce the number of active beams from the initial 1162 evenly distributed noncoplanar candidate beams, to between two and four. A heterogeneity index, which evaluates the lateral tissue heterogeneity of a beam, is used to weigh the group sparsity term. With this index, beams more resilient to setup uncertainties are encouraged. There is a symbiotic relationship between the heterogeneity index and the sensitivity regularization; the integrated optimization framework further improves beam robustness against both range and setup uncertainties. This Sensitivity regularization and Heterogeneity weighting based BOO and FMO framework (SHBOO-FMO) was tested on two skull-base tumor (SBT) patients and two bilateral head-and-neck (H&N) patients. The conventional CTV-based optimized plans (Conv) with SHBOO-FMO beams (SHBOO-Conv) and manual beams (MAN-Conv) were compared to investigate the beam robustness of the proposed method. The dosimetry and robustness of SHBOO-FMO plan were compared against the manual beam plan with CTV-based voxel-wise worst-case scenario approach (MAN-WC). With SHBOO-FMO method, the beams with superior range robustness over manual beams were selected while the setup robustness was maintained or improved. On average, the lowest [D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [93.85%, 91.06%, 70.64%] in MAN-Conv plans, to [98.62%, 98.61%, 96.17%] in SHBOO-Conv plans with range uncertainties. With setup uncertainties, the average lowest [D98%, D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [92.06%, 94.83%, 94.31%, 78.93%] in MAN-Conv plans, to [93.54%, 96.61%, 97.01%, 91.98%] in SHBOO-Conv plans. Compared with the MAN-WC plans, the final SHBOO-FMO plans achieved comparable plan robustness and better OAR sparing, with an average reduction of [Dmean, Dmax] of [6.31, 6.55] GyRBE for the SBT cases and [1.89, 5.08] GyRBE for the H&N cases from the MAN-WC plans. We developed a novel method to integrate robust BOO and robust FMO into IMPT optimization for a unified solution of both BOO and FMO, generating plans with superior dosimetry and good robustness.

Gu W ，Neph R ，Ruan D ，Zou W ，Dong L ，Sheng K ... -  《-》

Comparison of linear and nonlinear programming approaches for "worst case dose" and "minmax" robust optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy dose distributions.

Robust optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) takes uncertainties into account during spot weight optimization and leads to dose distributions that are resilient to uncertainties. Previous studies demonstrated benefits of linear programming (LP) for IMPT in terms of delivery efficiency by considerably reducing the number of spots required for the same quality of plans. However, a reduction in the number of spots may lead to loss of robustness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance in terms of plan quality and robustness of two robust optimization approaches using LP and nonlinear programming (NLP) models. The so-called "worst case dose" and "minmax" robust optimization approaches and conventional planning target volume (PTV)-based optimization approach were applied to designing IMPT plans for five patients: two with prostate cancer, one with skull-based cancer, and two with head and neck cancer. For each approach, both LP and NLP models were used. Thus, for each case, six sets of IMPT plans were generated and assessed: LP-PTV-based, NLP-PTV-based, LP-worst case dose, NLP-worst case dose, LP-minmax, and NLP-minmax. The four robust optimization methods behaved differently from patient to patient, and no method emerged as superior to the others in terms of nominal plan quality and robustness against uncertainties. The plans generated using LP-based robust optimization were more robust regarding patient setup and range uncertainties than were those generated using NLP-based robust optimization for the prostate cancer patients. However, the robustness of plans generated using NLP-based methods was superior for the skull-based and head and neck cancer patients. Overall, LP-based methods were suitable for the less challenging cancer cases in which all uncertainty scenarios were able to satisfy tight dose constraints, while NLP performed better in more difficult cases in which most uncertainty scenarios were hard to meet tight dose limits. For robust optimization, the worst case dose approach was less sensitive to uncertainties than was the minmax approach for the prostate and skull-based cancer patients, whereas the minmax approach was superior for the head and neck cancer patients. The robustness of the IMPT plans was remarkably better after robust optimization than after PTV-based optimization, and the NLP-PTV-based optimization outperformed the LP-PTV-based optimization regarding robustness of clinical target volume coverage. In addition, plans generated using LP-based methods had notably fewer scanning spots than did those generated using NLP-based methods.

Zaghian M ，Cao W ，Liu W ，Kardar L ，Randeniya S ，Mohan R ，Lim G ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers.

Liu W ，Frank SJ ，Li X ，Li Y ，Park PC ，Dong L ，Ronald Zhu X ，Mohan R ... -  《-》

PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization.

Liu W ，Frank SJ ，Li X ，Li Y ，Zhu RX ，Mohan R ... -  《-》