Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Development of robustness evaluation strategies for enabling statistically consistent reporting.
Sterpin, E; Rivas, Sara T; Van den Heuvel, F; George, B; Lee, J A; Souris, K.
Affiliation
  • Sterpin E; KU Leuven, Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Rivas ST; Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Center of Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium.
  • Van den Heuvel F; Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Center of Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium.
  • George B; CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Lee JA; Dept of Haematology/Oncology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Souris K; CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Phys Med Biol ; 66(4): 045002, 2021 02 02.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33296875
ABSTRACT
Robustness evaluation of proton therapy treatment plans is essential for ensuring safe treatment delivery. However, available evaluation procedures feature a limited exploration of the actual robustness of the plan and generally do not provide confidence levels. This study compared established and more sophisticated robustness evaluation procedures, with quantified confidence levels. We have evaluated several robustness evaluation methods for 5 bilateral head-and-neck patients optimized considering spot scanning delivery and with a conventional CTV-to-PTV margin of 4 mm. Method (1) good practice scenario selection (GPSS) (e.g. +/- 4 mm setup error 3% range uncertainty); (2) statistically sound scenario selection (SSSS) either only on or both on and inside isoprobability hypersurface encompassing 90% of the possible errors; (3) statistically sound dosimetric selection (SSDS). In the last method, the 90% best plans were selected according to either target coverage quantified by D 95 (SSDS_D 95) or to an approximation of the final objective function (OF) used during treatment optimization (SSDS_OF). For all methods, we have considered systematic setup and systematic range errors. A mix of systematic and random setup errors were also simulated for SSDS, but keeping the same conventional margin of 4 mm. All robustness evaluations have been performed using the fast Monte Carlo dose engine MCsquare. Both SSSS strategies yielded on average very similar results. SSSS and GPSS yield comparable values for target coverage (within 0.5 Gy). The most noticeable differences were found for the CTV between GPSS, on the one hand, and SSDS_D 95 and SSDS_OF, on the other hand (average worst-case D 98 were 2.8 and 2.0 Gy larger than for GPSS, respectively). Simulating explicitly random errors in SSDS improved almost all DVH metrics. We have observed that the width of DVH-bands and the confidence levels depend on the method chosen to sample the scenarios. Statistically sound estimation of the robustness of the plan in the dosimetric space may provide an improved insight on the actual robustness of the plan for a given confidence level.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Research Design / Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Proton Therapy Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Phys Med Biol Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Bélgica

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Research Design / Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Proton Therapy Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Phys Med Biol Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Bélgica