Cargando…
Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer
BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of systematic setup and range uncertainties for robustly optimized (RO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six localized prostate patients previously...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9523999/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36175971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02126-y |
_version_ | 1784800411568308224 |
---|---|
author | Butkus, Michael P. Brovold, Nellie Diwanji, Tejan Xu, Yihang De Ornelas, Mariluz Dal Pra, Alan Abramowitz, Matt Pollack, Alan Dogan, Nesrin |
author_facet | Butkus, Michael P. Brovold, Nellie Diwanji, Tejan Xu, Yihang De Ornelas, Mariluz Dal Pra, Alan Abramowitz, Matt Pollack, Alan Dogan, Nesrin |
author_sort | Butkus, Michael P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of systematic setup and range uncertainties for robustly optimized (RO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six localized prostate patients previously treated with VMAT (CTV to PTV expansion of 3-5 mm) were re-planned with RO-IMPT with 3 mm and 5 mm geometrical uncertainties coupled with 3% range uncertainties. Robust evaluations (RE) accounting for the geometrical uncertainties of 3 and 5 mm were evaluated for the IMPT and VMAT plans. Clinical target volume (CTV), anorectum, and bladder dose metrics were analyzed between the nominal plans and their uncertainty perturbations. RESULTS: With geometric uncertainties of 5 mm and accounting for potential inter-fractional perturbations, RO-IMPT provided statistically significant (p < 0.05) sparing at intermediate doses (V(4000cGy)) to the anorectum and bladder and high dose sparring (V(8000cGy)) to the bladder compared to VMAT. Decreasing the RO and RE parameters to 3 mm improved IMPT sparing over VMAT at all OAR dose levels investigated while maintaining equivalent coverage to the CTV. CONCLUSIONS: For localized prostate treatments, if geometric uncertainties can be maintained at or below 3 mm, RO-IMPT provides clear dosimetric advantages in anorectum and bladder sparing compared to VMAT. This advantage remains even under uncertainty scenarios. As geometric uncertainties increase to 5 mm, RO-IMPT still provides dosimetric advantages, but to a smaller magnitude. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9523999 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95239992022-10-01 Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer Butkus, Michael P. Brovold, Nellie Diwanji, Tejan Xu, Yihang De Ornelas, Mariluz Dal Pra, Alan Abramowitz, Matt Pollack, Alan Dogan, Nesrin Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of systematic setup and range uncertainties for robustly optimized (RO) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six localized prostate patients previously treated with VMAT (CTV to PTV expansion of 3-5 mm) were re-planned with RO-IMPT with 3 mm and 5 mm geometrical uncertainties coupled with 3% range uncertainties. Robust evaluations (RE) accounting for the geometrical uncertainties of 3 and 5 mm were evaluated for the IMPT and VMAT plans. Clinical target volume (CTV), anorectum, and bladder dose metrics were analyzed between the nominal plans and their uncertainty perturbations. RESULTS: With geometric uncertainties of 5 mm and accounting for potential inter-fractional perturbations, RO-IMPT provided statistically significant (p < 0.05) sparing at intermediate doses (V(4000cGy)) to the anorectum and bladder and high dose sparring (V(8000cGy)) to the bladder compared to VMAT. Decreasing the RO and RE parameters to 3 mm improved IMPT sparing over VMAT at all OAR dose levels investigated while maintaining equivalent coverage to the CTV. CONCLUSIONS: For localized prostate treatments, if geometric uncertainties can be maintained at or below 3 mm, RO-IMPT provides clear dosimetric advantages in anorectum and bladder sparing compared to VMAT. This advantage remains even under uncertainty scenarios. As geometric uncertainties increase to 5 mm, RO-IMPT still provides dosimetric advantages, but to a smaller magnitude. BioMed Central 2022-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9523999/ /pubmed/36175971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02126-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Butkus, Michael P. Brovold, Nellie Diwanji, Tejan Xu, Yihang De Ornelas, Mariluz Dal Pra, Alan Abramowitz, Matt Pollack, Alan Dogan, Nesrin Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer |
title | Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer |
title_full | Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer |
title_fullStr | Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer |
title_short | Assessment of IMPT versus VMAT plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer |
title_sort | assessment of impt versus vmat plans using different uncertainty scenarios for prostate cancer |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9523999/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36175971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02126-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT butkusmichaelp assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT brovoldnellie assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT diwanjitejan assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT xuyihang assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT deornelasmariluz assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT dalpraalan assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT abramowitzmatt assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT pollackalan assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer AT dogannesrin assessmentofimptversusvmatplansusingdifferentuncertaintyscenariosforprostatecancer |