Online-adaptive versus robust IMPT for prostate cancer: How much can we gain?
Intensity-modulated proton therapy
Inter-fraction variation
Online treatment planning
Online-adaptive proton therapy
Prostate cancer
Robust treatment planning
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
25
02
2020
revised:
24
06
2020
accepted:
23
07
2020
pubmed:
11
8
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
11
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to anatomical variations which can cause inadequate target coverage during treatment. Available mitigation techniques include robust treatment planning and online-adaptive IMPT. This study compares a robust planning strategy to two online-adaptive IMPT strategies to determine the benefit of online adaptation. We derived the robustness settings and safety margins needed to yield adequate target coverage (V Margins of 4 and 8 mm around the high- and low-dose target regions, a 6 mm setup error and a 3% range error were found to obtain adequate target coverage for all repeat CTs of 10/11 patients (94.3% of all 88 repeat CTs). Both online-adaptive strategies yielded V Both full plan adaptation and simple dose restoration can increase OAR sparing besides better conforming to the target criteria compared to robust treatment planning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is highly sensitive to anatomical variations which can cause inadequate target coverage during treatment. Available mitigation techniques include robust treatment planning and online-adaptive IMPT. This study compares a robust planning strategy to two online-adaptive IMPT strategies to determine the benefit of online adaptation.
MATERIALS/METHODS
We derived the robustness settings and safety margins needed to yield adequate target coverage (V
RESULTS
Margins of 4 and 8 mm around the high- and low-dose target regions, a 6 mm setup error and a 3% range error were found to obtain adequate target coverage for all repeat CTs of 10/11 patients (94.3% of all 88 repeat CTs). Both online-adaptive strategies yielded V
CONCLUSION
Both full plan adaptation and simple dose restoration can increase OAR sparing besides better conforming to the target criteria compared to robust treatment planning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32777242
pii: S0167-8140(20)30713-1
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.054
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228-233Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.