Quantification of plan robustness against different uncertainty sources for classical and anatomical robust optimized treatment plans in head and neck cancer proton therapy

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.

Dosimetric analysis of six whole-breast irradiation techniques in supine and prone positions

In breast cancer radiation therapy, minimizing radiation-related risks and toxicity is vital for improving life expectancy. Tailoring radiotherapy techniques and treatment positions can reduce radiation doses to normal organs and mitigate treatment-related toxicity. This study entailed a dosimetric comparison of six different external beam whole-breast irradiation techniques in both supine and prone positions. We selected fourteen breast cancer patients, generating six treatment plans in both positions per patient. We assessed target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) doses to evaluate the impact of treatment techniques and positions. Excess absolute risk was calculated to estimate potential secondary cancer risk in the contralateral breast, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral lung. Additionally, we analyzed the distance between the target volume and OARs (heart and ipsilateral lung) while considering the treatment position. The results indicate that prone positioning lowers lung exposure in X-ray radiotherapy. However, particle beam therapies (PBTs) significantly reduce the dose to the heart and ipsilateral lung regardless of the patient's position. Notably, negligible differences were observed between arc-delivery and static-delivery PBTs in terms of target conformity and OAR sparing. This study provides critical dosimetric evidence to facilitate informed decision-making regarding treatment techniques and positions.

Assessment of residual geometrical errors of clinical target volumes and their impact on dose accumulation for head and neck radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To assess the residual geometrical errors (dr) and their impact on the clinical target volumes (CTV) dose coverage for head and neck cancer (HNC) proton therapy patients.

METHODS

We analysed 28 HNC patients treated with 70 Gy (RBE) and 54.25 Gy (RBE) to the therapeutic CTV70 and prophylactic CTV54.25, respectively. Daily cone beam CTs were converted to high quality synthetic CTs (sCTs). The CTVs from the nominal CT were propagated to the corresponding sCTs using a hybrid deformable image registration (propagated CTVs) in RayStation 11B. For 11 patients, all propagated CTVs were reviewed by our HNC radiation oncologist (physician corrected CTVs). The residual geometrical error dr was quantified as a function of the daily CTVs volume overlap with the nominal plan CTV. The errors dr(propagated CTVs) and dr(physician corrected CTVs) and the difference in dice similarity coefficients (ΔDSC) were determined. Using clinical plans, dose coverage and the tumor control probability (TCP) for the nominal, accumulated and voxel-wise minimum scenarios were determined.

RESULTS

The difference in the residual geometrical error dr (propagated CTVs - physician corrected CTVs) and mean DSC (|ΔDSC|mean) were minor: Δdr(CTV70) = 0.16 mm, Δdr(CTV54.25) = 0.26 mm, |ΔDSC|mean < 0.9%. For all 28 patients, dr(CTV70) = 1.91 mm and dr(CTV54.25) = 1.90 mm. However, CTV54.25 above and below the cricoid cartilage differed substantially (1.00 mm c.f. 3.93 mm). The CTV54.25 coverage below the cricoid was then almost always lower, although the TCP of the accumulated dose was higher than the TCP of the voxel-wise minimum dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Setup uncertainty setting of 2 mm is possible. The feasibility of using propagated CTVs for error determination is demonstrated.

Pre-treatment analysis of non-rigid variations can assist robust intensity-modulated proton therapy plan selection for head and neck patients

PURPOSE

To incorporate small non-rigid variations of head and neck patients into the robust evaluation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for the selection of robust treatment plans.

METHODS

A cohort of 20 nasopharynx cancer patients with weekly kilovoltage CT (kVCT) and 15 oropharynx cancer patients with weekly cone-beam CT (CBCT) were retrospectively included. Anatomical variations between week 0/week 1 of treatment were acquired using deformable image registration (DIR) for all 35 patients and then applied to the planning CT of four patients who have kVCT scanned each week to simulate potential small non-rigid variations (sNRVs). The robust evaluations were conducted on IMPT plans with: (1) different number of beam fields from 3-field to 5-field; (2) different beam angles. The robust evaluation before treatment, including the sNRVs and setup uncertainty, referred to as sNRV+R evaluation was compared with the conventional evaluation (without sNRVs) in terms of robustness consistency with the gold standard evaluation based on weekly CT.

RESULTS

Among four patients (490 scenarios), we observed a maximum difference in the sNRV+R evaluation to the nominal dose of: 9.37% dose degradation on D₉₅ of clinical target volumes (CTVs), increase in mean dose (D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ ) of parotid 11.87 Gy, increase in max dose (D max $_{\text{max}}$ ) of brainstem 20.82 Gy. In contrast, in conventional evaluation, we observed a maximum difference to the nominal dose of: 7.58% dose degradation on D₉₅ of the CTVs, increase in parotid D mean $_{\text{mean}}$ by 4.88 Gy, increase in brainstem D max $_{\text{max}}$ by 13.5 Gy. In the measurement of the robustness ranking consistency with the gold standard evaluation, the sNRV+R evaluation was better or equal to the conventional evaluation in 77% of cases, particularly, better on spinal cord, parotid glands, and low-risk CTV.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the additional dose discrepancy that sNRVs can make. The inclusion of sNRVs can be beneficial to robust evaluation, providing information on clinical uncertainties additional to the conventional rigid isocenter shift.

Range uncertainty reductions in proton therapy may lead to the feasibility of novel beam arrangements which improve organ-at-risk sparing

PURPOSE

In proton therapy, dose distributions are currently often conformed to organs at risk (OARs) using the less sharp dose fall-off at the lateral beam edge to reduce the effects of uncertainties in the in vivo proton range. However, range uncertainty reductions may make greater use of the sharper dose fall-off at the distal beam edge feasible, potentially improving OAR sparing. We quantified the benefits of such novel beam arrangements.

METHODS

For each of 10 brain or skull base cases, five treatment plans robust to 2 mm setup and 0%-4% range uncertainty were created for the traditional clinical beam arrangement and a novel beam arrangement making greater use of the distal beam edge to conform the dose distribution to the brainstem. Metrics including the brainstem normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) with the endpoint of necrosis were determined for all plans and all setup and range uncertainty scenarios.

RESULTS

For the traditional beam arrangement, reducing the range uncertainty from the current level of approximately 4% to a potentially achievable level of 1% reduced the brainstem NTCP by up to 0.9 percentage points in the nominal and up to 1.5 percentage points in the worst-case scenario. Switching to the novel beam arrangement at 1% range uncertainty improved these values by a factor of 2, that is, to 1.8 percentage points and 3.2 percentage points, respectively. The novel beam arrangement achieved a lower brainstem NTCP in all cases starting at a range uncertainty of 2%.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of novel beam arrangements may be of the same magnitude or even exceed the direct benefits of range uncertainty reductions. Indirect effects may therefore contribute markedly to the benefits of reducing proton range uncertainties.

Proton range uncertainty reduction benefits for skull base tumors in terms of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and healthy tissue doses

PURPOSE

Proton therapy allows for more conformal dose distributions and lower organ at risk and healthy tissue doses than conventional photon-based radiotherapy, but uncertainties in the proton range currently prevent proton therapy from making full use of these advantages. Numerous developments therefore aim to reduce such range uncertainties. In this work, we quantify the benefits of reductions in range uncertainty for treatments of skull base tumors.

METHODS

The study encompassed 10 skull base patients with clival tumors. For every patient, six treatment plans robust to setup errors of 2 mm and range errors from 0% to 5% were created. The determined metrics included the brainstem and optic chiasm normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) with the endpoints of necrosis and blindness, respectively, as well as the healthy tissue volume receiving at least 70% of the prescription dose.

RESULTS

A range uncertainty reduction from the current level of 4% to a potentially achievable level of 1% reduced the probability of brainstem necrosis by up to 1.3 percentage points in the nominal scenario in which neither setup nor range errors occur and by up to 2.9 percentage points in the worst-case scenario. Such a range uncertainty reduction also reduced the optic chiasm NTCP with the endpoint of blindness by up to 0.9 percentage points in the nominal scenario and by up to 2.2 percentage points in the worst-case scenario. The decrease in the healthy tissue volume receiving at least 70% of the prescription dose ranged from -7.8 to 24.1 cc in the nominal scenario and from -3.4 to 38.4 cc in the worst-case scenario.

CONCLUSION

The benefits quantified as part of this study serve as a guideline of the OAR and healthy tissue dose benefits that range monitoring techniques may be able to achieve. Benefits were observed between all levels of range uncertainty. Even smaller range uncertainty reductions may therefore be beneficial.

Anatomic changes in head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy: Comparison between robust optimization and online adaptation

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Setup variations and anatomical changes can severely affect the quality of head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments. The impact of these changes can be alleviated by increasing the plan's robustness a priori, or by adapting the plan online. This work compares these approaches in the context of head and neck IMPT.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A representative cohort of 10 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was evaluated. For each patient, three IMPT plans were created: 1- a classical robust optimization (cRO) plan optimized on the planning CT, 2- an anatomical robust optimization (aRO) plan additionally including the two first daily CBCTs and 3- a plan optimized without robustness constraints, but online-adapted (OA) daily, using a constrained spot intensity re-optimization technique only.

RESULTS

The cumulative dose following OA fulfilled the clinical objective of both the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) coverage in all 10 patients, compared to 8 for aRO and 4 for cRO. aRO did not significantly increase the dose to most organs at risk compared to cRO, although the integral dose was higher. OA significantly reduced the integral dose to healthy tissues compared to both robust methods, while providing equivalent or superior target coverage.

CONCLUSION

Using a simple spot intensity re-optimization, daily OA can achieve superior target coverage and lower dose to organs at risk than robust optimization methods.