title: Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to uncertainties in beam range and patient setup. Conventionally, these uncertainties are dealt using geometrically expanded planning target volume (PTV). In this paper, the authors evaluated a robust optimization method that deals with the uncertainties directly during the spot weight optimization to ensure clinical target volume (CTV) coverage without using PTV. The authors compared the two methods for a population of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two sets of IMPT plans were generated for 14 H&N cases, one being PTV-based conventionally optimized and the other CTV-based robustly optimized. For the PTV-based conventionally optimized plans, the uncertainties are accounted for by expanding CTV to PTV via margins and delivering the prescribed dose to PTV. For the CTV-based robustly optimized plans, spot weight optimization was guided to reduce the discrepancy in doses under extreme setup and range uncertainties directly, while delivering the prescribed dose to CTV rather than PTV. For each of these plans, the authors calculated dose distributions under various uncertainty settings. The root-mean-square dose (RMSD) for each voxel was computed and the area under the RMSD-volume histogram curves (AUC) was used to relatively compare plan robustness. Data derived from the dose volume histogram in the worst-case and nominal doses were used to evaluate the plan optimality. Then the plan evaluation metrics were averaged over the 14 cases and were compared with two-sided paired t tests.
  
  
  RESULTS
  CTV-based robust optimization led to more robust (i.e., smaller AUCs) plans for both targets and organs. Under the worst-case scenario and the nominal scenario, CTV-based robustly optimized plans showed better target coverage (i.e., greater D95%), improved dose homogeneity (i.e., smaller D5% - D95%), and lower or equivalent dose to organs at risk.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  CTV-based robust optimization provided significantly more robust dose distributions to targets and organs than PTV-based conventional optimization in H&N using IMPT. Eliminating the use of PTV and planning directly based on CTV provided better or equivalent normal tissue sparing.
authors: Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. WLiu3@mdanderson.org
authors: Wei
authors: W
authors: Liu
authors: Steven J
authors: SJ
authors: Frank
authors: Xiaoqiang
authors: X
authors: Li
authors: Yupeng
authors: Y
authors: Li
authors: Peter C
authors: PC
authors: Park
authors: Lei
authors: L
authors: Dong
authors: X
authors: X
authors: Ronald Zhu
authors: Radhe
authors: R
authors: Mohan
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D061766:Proton Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies
references: Med Phys. 2000 Apr;27(4):701-11
references: 10798692
references: Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012 Jul-Sep;2(3):164-171
references: 22773939
references: Med Phys. 2012 Feb;39(2):1079-91
references: 22320818
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Mar 21;53(6):1689-700
references: 18367797
references: Radiother Oncol. 2012 Jul;104(1):45-51
references: 22560714
references: Med Phys. 2011 Mar;38(3):1672-84
references: 21520880
references: Z Med Phys. 2004;14(3):147-52
references: 15462415
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 21;53(4):1027-42
references: 18263956
references: Radiother Oncol. 2006 Aug;80(2):263-7
references: 16916557
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):e329-36
references: 21703781
references: Med Phys. 1985 Sep-Oct;12(5):608-12
references: 4046996
references: Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6):3089-101
references: 22755694
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Oct 1;72(2):589-96
references: 18793962
references: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Feb 7;57(3):591-608
references: 22222720
references: Med Phys. 2001 Mar;28(3):317-24
references: 11318312
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jan;36(1):149-63
references: 19235384
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jan 1;52(1):224-35
references: 11777642
references: Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):5169-81
references: 22894442
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 May 21;55(10):2863-78
references: 20427853
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 21;56(14):4399-413
references: 21709340
references: Phys Med Biol. 2007 May 21;52(10):2755-73
references: 17473350
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Feb 21;56(4):N71-84
references: 21263173
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Feb 21;53(4):1043-56
references: 18263957
references: Med Phys. 2005 Dec;32(12):3549-57
references: 16475753