Cargando…
Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach
PURPOSE: To assess the worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans with setup and range uncertainties and to test the hypothesis that the worst-case robust optimization strategies could cover most possible setup and range uncertainties in the real scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed the nominal and worst-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31324257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1335-8 |
_version_ | 1783437006558199808 |
---|---|
author | Yang, Zhiyong Li, Heng Li, Yupeng Li, Yuting Chang, Yu Li, Qin Yang, Kunyu Wu, Gang Sahoo, Narayan Poenisch, Falk Gillin, Michael Zhu, X. Ronald Zhang, Xiaodong |
author_facet | Yang, Zhiyong Li, Heng Li, Yupeng Li, Yuting Chang, Yu Li, Qin Yang, Kunyu Wu, Gang Sahoo, Narayan Poenisch, Falk Gillin, Michael Zhu, X. Ronald Zhang, Xiaodong |
author_sort | Yang, Zhiyong |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To assess the worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans with setup and range uncertainties and to test the hypothesis that the worst-case robust optimization strategies could cover most possible setup and range uncertainties in the real scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed the nominal and worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans of seven patients with head and neck cancer patients. To take uncertainties into account for the dose calculation, we performed a comprehensive simulation in which the dose was recalculated 625 times per given plan using Gaussian systematic setup and proton range uncertainties. Subsequently, based on the simulation results, we calculated the target coverage in all perturbation scenarios, as well as the ratios of target coverage located within the threshold of eight worst-case scenarios. We set the criteria for the optimized plan to be the ratios of 1) the dose delivered to 95% (D95%) of clinical target volumes 1 and 2 (CTV1 and CTV2) above 95% of the prescribed dose, and 2) the D95% of clinical target volume 3 (CTV3) above 90% of the prescribed dose in worst-case situations. RESULTS: The probability that the perturbed-dose indices of the CTVs in each scenario were within the worst-case scenario limits ranged from 89.51 to 91.22% for both the nominal and worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans. A quartile analysis showed that the selective robust optimization IMPT plans all had higher D95% values for CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 than did the nominal IMPT plans. CONCLUSIONS: The worst-case strategy for robust optimization is adequately models and covers most of the setup and range uncertainties for the IMPT treatment of head and neck patients in our center. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1335-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6642585 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66425852019-07-29 Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach Yang, Zhiyong Li, Heng Li, Yupeng Li, Yuting Chang, Yu Li, Qin Yang, Kunyu Wu, Gang Sahoo, Narayan Poenisch, Falk Gillin, Michael Zhu, X. Ronald Zhang, Xiaodong Radiat Oncol Research PURPOSE: To assess the worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans with setup and range uncertainties and to test the hypothesis that the worst-case robust optimization strategies could cover most possible setup and range uncertainties in the real scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed the nominal and worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans of seven patients with head and neck cancer patients. To take uncertainties into account for the dose calculation, we performed a comprehensive simulation in which the dose was recalculated 625 times per given plan using Gaussian systematic setup and proton range uncertainties. Subsequently, based on the simulation results, we calculated the target coverage in all perturbation scenarios, as well as the ratios of target coverage located within the threshold of eight worst-case scenarios. We set the criteria for the optimized plan to be the ratios of 1) the dose delivered to 95% (D95%) of clinical target volumes 1 and 2 (CTV1 and CTV2) above 95% of the prescribed dose, and 2) the D95% of clinical target volume 3 (CTV3) above 90% of the prescribed dose in worst-case situations. RESULTS: The probability that the perturbed-dose indices of the CTVs in each scenario were within the worst-case scenario limits ranged from 89.51 to 91.22% for both the nominal and worst-case robust optimization IMPT plans. A quartile analysis showed that the selective robust optimization IMPT plans all had higher D95% values for CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3 than did the nominal IMPT plans. CONCLUSIONS: The worst-case strategy for robust optimization is adequately models and covers most of the setup and range uncertainties for the IMPT treatment of head and neck patients in our center. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1335-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6642585/ /pubmed/31324257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1335-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Yang, Zhiyong Li, Heng Li, Yupeng Li, Yuting Chang, Yu Li, Qin Yang, Kunyu Wu, Gang Sahoo, Narayan Poenisch, Falk Gillin, Michael Zhu, X. Ronald Zhang, Xiaodong Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach |
title | Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach |
title_full | Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach |
title_fullStr | Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach |
title_full_unstemmed | Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach |
title_short | Statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach |
title_sort | statistical evaluation of worst-case robust optimization intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using an exhaustive sampling approach |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31324257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1335-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yangzhiyong statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT liheng statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT liyupeng statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT liyuting statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT changyu statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT liqin statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT yangkunyu statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT wugang statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT sahoonarayan statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT poenischfalk statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT gillinmichael statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT zhuxronald statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach AT zhangxiaodong statisticalevaluationofworstcaserobustoptimizationintensitymodulatedprotontherapyplansusinganexhaustivesamplingapproach |