Implementation and experimental validation of a robust hybrid direct aperture optimization approach for mixed-beam radiotherapy.
mixed-beam radiation therapy
modulated electron radiation therapy
robust optimization
treatment planning
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
revised:
30
08
2021
received:
27
06
2021
accepted:
16
09
2021
pubmed:
30
9
2021
medline:
18
11
2021
entrez:
29
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objectives of the work presented in this paper were to (1) implement a robust-optimization method for deliverable mixed-beam radiotherapy (MBRT) plans within a previously developed MBRT planning framework; (2) perform an experimental validation of the delivery of robust-optimized MBRT plans; and (3) compare PTV-based and robust-optimized MBRT plans in terms of target dose robustness and organs at risk (OAR) sparing for clinical head and neck and brain patient cases. A robust-optimization method, which accounts for translational setup errors, was implemented within a previously developed treatment planning framework for MBRT. The framework uses a hybrid direct aperture optimization method combining column generation and simulated annealing. A robust plan was developed and then delivered to an anthropomorphic head phantom using the Developer Mode of a TrueBeam linac. Planar dose distributions were measured and compared to the planned dose. Robust-optimized and PTV-based plans were developed for three clinical patient cases consisting of two head and neck cases and one brain case. The plans were compared in terms of the robustness to 5 mm shifts of the target volume dose as well as in terms of OAR sparing. Using a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm and a dose threshold of 10%, the agreement between film measurements and dose calculations was better than 97.7% for the total plan and better than 95.5% for the electron component of the plan. For the two head and neck patient cases, the average clinical target volume (CTV) dose homogeneity index (V95%-V107%) over all the considered setup error scenarios was on average 19% lower for the PTV-based plans and it had a larger standard deviation. The robust-optimized plans achieved, on average, a 20% reduction in the OAR doses compared to the PTV-based plans. For the brain patient case, the CTV dose homogeneity index was similar for the two plans, while the OAR doses were 22% lower, on average, for the robust-optimized plan. No clear trend in terms of electron contributions was found across the three patient cases, although robust-optimized plans tended toward higher electron beam energies. A framework for robust optimization of deliverable MBRT plans has been developed and validated. PTV-based MBRT were found to not be robust to setup errors, while the dose delivered by the robust-optimized plans were clinically acceptable for all considered error scenarios and had better OAR sparing. This study shows that the robust optimization is a promising alternative to conventional PTV margins for MBRT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34585756
doi: 10.1002/mp.15258
pmc: PMC9292851
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7299-7312Subventions
Organisme : Swiss National Science Foundation and Varian Medical Systems
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Med Phys. 2017 Aug;44(8):4287-4298
pubmed: 28500783
Med Phys. 2021 Sep;48(9):5382-5395
pubmed: 34224144
Med Phys. 2019 Mar;46(3):1384-1396
pubmed: 30628079
Med Phys. 2015 Jan;42(1):416-29
pubmed: 25563282
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Jun 26;62(14):5840-5860
pubmed: 28467321
Phys Med Biol. 2007 Oct 7;52(19):N425-37
pubmed: 17881793
Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):5169-81
pubmed: 22894442
Phys Med Biol. 2006 Apr 21;51(8):2113-29
pubmed: 16585849
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Mar 7;57(5):1191-202
pubmed: 22330241
Med Phys. 2005 Sep;32(9):2976-86
pubmed: 16266112
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jan 1;52(1):236-53
pubmed: 11777643
Med Phys. 2018 Jul 10;:
pubmed: 29992574
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Aug 21;55(16):4577-88
pubmed: 20668339
Med Phys. 2009 Jul;36(7):3239-79
pubmed: 19673223
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Sep 7;49(17):4005-29
pubmed: 15470920
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2004 Feb;3(1):69-75
pubmed: 14750895
Phys Med Biol. 2004 May 21;49(10):1973-89
pubmed: 15214536
Phys Med Biol. 2005 Mar 7;50(5):847-57
pubmed: 15798259
Med Phys. 2018 Apr;45(4):e53-e83
pubmed: 29443390
Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6339-50
pubmed: 23039670
Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):4820-31
pubmed: 22894408
Med Phys. 2021 Nov;48(11):7299-7312
pubmed: 34585756
Med Phys. 2014 Feb;41(2):021714
pubmed: 24506605
Phys Med Biol. 1995 Apr;40(4):543-74
pubmed: 7610114
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Aug;45(8):2293-311
pubmed: 10958195