Exploring the dosimetric impact of systematic and random setup uncertainties in robust optimization of head and neck IMPT plans

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Suresh Rana, Noufal Manthala Padannayil, Youssef Zeidan, Shyam Pokharel, Samuel Richter, Michael Kasper, Hina Saeed
{"title":"Exploring the dosimetric impact of systematic and random setup uncertainties in robust optimization of head and neck IMPT plans","authors":"Suresh Rana,&nbsp;Noufal Manthala Padannayil,&nbsp;Youssef Zeidan,&nbsp;Shyam Pokharel,&nbsp;Samuel Richter,&nbsp;Michael Kasper,&nbsp;Hina Saeed","doi":"10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.104863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aims to compare the dosimetric impact of incorporating systematic and random setup uncertainties in the robust optimization of head and neck cancer (HNC) Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) plans.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Bilateral HNC patients (n = 10) previously treated with conventional photon therapy at our institution were included. Both systematic and random setup uncertainties were incorporated into the robust optimization process of IMPT planning. Dosimetric comparisons were made between plans optimized with systematic (IMPT-S) versus random (IMPT-R) setup uncertainties, assessing both the clinical target volume (CTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) across various dosimetric metrics. Both plans applied a fixed range uncertainty of ± 3 % and a maximum setup uncertainty of ± 3 mm.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both IMPT-S and IMPT-R plans achieved similar target coverage, meeting robustness criteria for CTVs. On average, the D<sub>95%</sub> voxel-wise min to the high-risk CTV (CTV_HR) was slightly higher in IMPT-S plans by 1.78 ± 0.72 % compared to IMPT-R plans. However, IMPT-R plans provided better OAR sparing, which was evident in both nominal and voxel-wise maximum values. While random setup errors in robust optimization improved OAR sparing, the clinical impact may be minimal where OAR doses are already well below tolerance levels.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both IMPT-S and IMPT-R techniques met the robustness criteria for CTVs in HNC IMPT planning. Incorporating random setup uncertainties in robust optimization improves OAR sparing compared to systematic setup uncertainties. Further research is needed to explore the broader applicability of random setup errors and to integrate random uncertainties in robustness evaluations for a more comprehensive assessment of treatment plans.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56092,"journal":{"name":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","volume":"128 ","pages":"Article 104863"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physica Medica-European Journal of Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1120179724013310","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to compare the dosimetric impact of incorporating systematic and random setup uncertainties in the robust optimization of head and neck cancer (HNC) Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) plans.

Methods

Bilateral HNC patients (n = 10) previously treated with conventional photon therapy at our institution were included. Both systematic and random setup uncertainties were incorporated into the robust optimization process of IMPT planning. Dosimetric comparisons were made between plans optimized with systematic (IMPT-S) versus random (IMPT-R) setup uncertainties, assessing both the clinical target volume (CTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) across various dosimetric metrics. Both plans applied a fixed range uncertainty of ± 3 % and a maximum setup uncertainty of ± 3 mm.

Results

Both IMPT-S and IMPT-R plans achieved similar target coverage, meeting robustness criteria for CTVs. On average, the D95% voxel-wise min to the high-risk CTV (CTV_HR) was slightly higher in IMPT-S plans by 1.78 ± 0.72 % compared to IMPT-R plans. However, IMPT-R plans provided better OAR sparing, which was evident in both nominal and voxel-wise maximum values. While random setup errors in robust optimization improved OAR sparing, the clinical impact may be minimal where OAR doses are already well below tolerance levels.

Conclusion

Both IMPT-S and IMPT-R techniques met the robustness criteria for CTVs in HNC IMPT planning. Incorporating random setup uncertainties in robust optimization improves OAR sparing compared to systematic setup uncertainties. Further research is needed to explore the broader applicability of random setup errors and to integrate random uncertainties in robustness evaluations for a more comprehensive assessment of treatment plans.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
14.70%
发文量
493
审稿时长
78 days
期刊介绍: Physica Medica, European Journal of Medical Physics, publishing with Elsevier from 2007, provides an international forum for research and reviews on the following main topics: Medical Imaging Radiation Therapy Radiation Protection Measuring Systems and Signal Processing Education and training in Medical Physics Professional issues in Medical Physics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信