Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 3, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Quantification of plan robustness against different uncertainty sources for classical and anatomical robust optimized
Macarena Cubillos-Mesías1, Esther G C Troost1,2,3,4,5, Fabian Lohaus1,3,4
1OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
Objective:
Classical robust optimization (cRO) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) considers isocenter position and particle range uncertainties; anatomical robust optimization (aRO) aims to consider additional non-rigid positioning variations. This work compares the influence of different uncertainty sources on the robustness of cRO and aRO IMPT plans for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
Methods:
Two IMPT plans were optimized for 20 HNSCC patients who received weekly control CTs (cCT): cRO, using solely the planning CT, and aRO, including 2 additional cCTs. The robustness of the plans in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing was analyzed considering stepwise the influence of (1) non-rigid anatomical variations given by the weekly cCT, (2) with fraction-wise added rigid random setup errors and (3) additional systematic proton range uncertainties.
Results:
cRO plans presented significantly higher nominal CTV coverage but are outperformed by aRO plans when considering non-rigid anatomical variations only, as cRO and aRO plans presented a median target coverage (D98%) decrease for the low-risk/high-risk CTV of 1.8/1.1 percentage points (pp) and -0.2 pp/-0.3 pp, respectively. Setup and range uncertainties had larger influence on cRO CTV coverage, but led to similar OAR dose changes in both plans. Considering all error sources, 10/2 cRO/aRO patients missed the CTV coverage and a limited number exceeded some OAR constraints in both plans.
Conclusion:
Non-rigid anatomical variations are mainly responsible for critical target coverage loss of cRO plans, whereas the aRO approach was robust against such variations. Both plans provide similar robustness of OAR parameters.
Advances In Knowledge:
The influence of different uncertainty sources was quantified for robust IMPT HNSCC plans.
More Related Videos
08:25Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
07:57Positron Emission Tomography-based Dose Painting Radiation Therapy in a Glioblastoma Rat Model using the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform
Published on: March 24, 2022
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:21Cancer Survival Analysis