Variance-based sensitivity analysis for uncertainties in proton therapy: A framework to assess the effect of simultaneous uncertainties in range, positioning, and RBE model predictions on RBE-weighted dose distributions

Robustness evaluation of pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatment planning: A systematic review

Compared to conventional radiotherapy using X-rays, proton therapy, in principle, allows better conformity of the dose distribution to target volumes, at the cost of greater sensitivity to physical, anatomical, and positioning uncertainties. Robust planning, both in terms of plan optimization and evaluation, has gained high visibility in publications on the subject and is part of clinical practice in many centers. However, there is currently no consensus on the methods and parameters to be used for robust optimization or robustness evaluation. We propose to overcome this deficiency by following the modified Delphi consensus method. This method first requires a systematic review of the literature. We performed this review using the PubMed and Web Of Science databases, via two different experts. Potential conflicts were resolved by a third expert. We then explored the different methods before focusing on clinical studies that evaluate robustness on a significant number of patients. Many robustness assessment methods are proposed in the literature. Some are more successful than others and their implementation varies between centers. Moreover, they are not all statistically or mathematically equivalent. The most sophisticated and rigorous methods have seen more limited application due to the difficulty of their implementation and their lack of widespread availability.

Dose-volume comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical esophageal cancer

Proton therapy for cervical esophageal cancer has many issues to be considered, such as the physiological curvature of the spine and the large range change from the neck to the trunk. We clarified the dosimetric characteristics of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for cervical esophageal cancer by comparing with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten patients with cervical esophageal cancer were retrospectively planned for VMAT, 2-field IMPT (2F-IMPT), and 3-field IMPT (3F-IMPT). All plans were optimized to reach clinically acceptable levels. For planning target volume (PTV) coverage, 95% of the PTV should be covered by 95% of the prescription dose, unless the spinal cord limit is violated. The organs at risk included the lung, spinal cord, larynx, skin, and whole body. The prescription dose was 60 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 30 fractions to the PTV. We compared the results according to dose-volume metrics. Significant dose reductions were achieved at lung doses, especially at low dose volumes of 20 Gy RBE or less in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans (p < 0.05). Although the spinal cord PRV was below the tolerance level, the results were also significantly higher in VMAT plans than in IMPT plans (p < 0.001). Spinal cord PRV D_mean was significantly higher in 3F-IMPT than in 2F-IMPT (p < 0.001). In addition, it was confirmed that the integral whole body dose can be dramatically reduced in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans. Both of 2F-IMPT and 3F-IMPT could effectively reduce spinal cord dose, as well as low integral whole body dose to a certain extent, while maintaining similar target coverage compared to VMAT. IMPT could be a promising treatment technique for patients with cervical esophageal cancer.

Combining inter-observer variability, range and setup uncertainty in a variance-based sensitivity analysis for proton therapy

Margin concepts in proton therapy aim to ensure full dose coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV) in presence of setup and range uncertainty. Due to inter-observer variability (IOV), the CTV itself is uncertain. We present a framework to evaluate the combined impact of IOV, setup and range uncertainty in a variance-based sensitivity analysis (SA). For ten patients with skull base meningioma, the mean calculation time to perform the SA including 1.6 × 10⁴ dose recalculations was 59 min. For two patients in this dataset, IOV had a relevant impact on the estimated CTV D_95% uncertainty.