Application of Photon-Derived Worst-Case Robustness Criteria to Proton Therapy Planning.

IF 2.1 Q3 ONCOLOGY
International Journal of Particle Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-12 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijpt.2025.100740
Krishmita Siwakoti, Allison P Dalton, Jared A Maas, Andrew M McDonald, Samuel R Marcrom, Rex A Cardan, Joseph Harms, John B Fiveash, Adam J Kole
{"title":"Application of Photon-Derived Worst-Case Robustness Criteria to Proton Therapy Planning.","authors":"Krishmita Siwakoti, Allison P Dalton, Jared A Maas, Andrew M McDonald, Samuel R Marcrom, Rex A Cardan, Joseph Harms, John B Fiveash, Adam J Kole","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpt.2025.100740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Robustness evaluation is critical for proton beam therapy (PBT) planning, but ideal robustness criteria are not clearly defined. Here, we compared robustness of PBT plans to published intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-derived clinical target volume (CTV) robustness benchmarks and assessed the dosimetric impact of meeting IMRT-derived benchmarks on adjacent organs at risk.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients receiving PBT to 70 GyE in 28 fractions to the prostate alone from 2021 to 2022 at our institution were evaluated. PBT plan robustness was evaluated in nominal and worst-case data scenarios for CTV V100%, CTV V95%, rectum V70 Gy, and bladder V60 Gy. Clinically delivered (\"Clinical\") plans were compared to IMRT-derived worst-case CTV benchmarks. If benchmarks were not met, PBT plans were modified to meet both CTV V100% and V95% goals (\"Benchmark\" plans). Dosimetric comparisons between Clinical and Benchmark plans used a Wilcoxon signed-rank test with alpha set at 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 32 patients, median age and PSA at diagnosis were 71 years and 6.84 ng/mL, respectively. Most patients had favorable-intermediate risk disease (56.3%). Only 31% of clinical PBT met both worst-case CTV V100% > 90% and CTV V95% > 99% IMRT benchmarks. Plan renormalization (16 patients) or reoptimization (6 patients) resulted in all Benchmark plans meeting worst-case CTV thresholds. For Benchmark plans, nominal rectum V70 Gy increased from 0.72 to 0.92 cm<sup>3</sup>, and nominal bladder V60 Gy increased from 5.9% to 6.0% (<i>P</i> < .05 for each). Overall plan hot spot between Clinical and Benchmark plans increased from 104.5 to 105.5% (<i>P</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When compared to an IMRT-derived benchmark for robustness coverage, Clinical PBT plans were less robust. However, all PBT plans were successfully modified to meet worst-case CTV benchmark with limited clinically expected impact on organ at risk dosimetry. Consideration should be made to adopt these benchmark criteria for prostate PBT.</p>","PeriodicalId":36923,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","volume":"15 ","pages":"100740"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11889357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpt.2025.100740","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Robustness evaluation is critical for proton beam therapy (PBT) planning, but ideal robustness criteria are not clearly defined. Here, we compared robustness of PBT plans to published intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-derived clinical target volume (CTV) robustness benchmarks and assessed the dosimetric impact of meeting IMRT-derived benchmarks on adjacent organs at risk.

Patients and methods: Patients receiving PBT to 70 GyE in 28 fractions to the prostate alone from 2021 to 2022 at our institution were evaluated. PBT plan robustness was evaluated in nominal and worst-case data scenarios for CTV V100%, CTV V95%, rectum V70 Gy, and bladder V60 Gy. Clinically delivered ("Clinical") plans were compared to IMRT-derived worst-case CTV benchmarks. If benchmarks were not met, PBT plans were modified to meet both CTV V100% and V95% goals ("Benchmark" plans). Dosimetric comparisons between Clinical and Benchmark plans used a Wilcoxon signed-rank test with alpha set at 0.05.

Results: Among 32 patients, median age and PSA at diagnosis were 71 years and 6.84 ng/mL, respectively. Most patients had favorable-intermediate risk disease (56.3%). Only 31% of clinical PBT met both worst-case CTV V100% > 90% and CTV V95% > 99% IMRT benchmarks. Plan renormalization (16 patients) or reoptimization (6 patients) resulted in all Benchmark plans meeting worst-case CTV thresholds. For Benchmark plans, nominal rectum V70 Gy increased from 0.72 to 0.92 cm3, and nominal bladder V60 Gy increased from 5.9% to 6.0% (P < .05 for each). Overall plan hot spot between Clinical and Benchmark plans increased from 104.5 to 105.5% (P < .05).

Conclusion: When compared to an IMRT-derived benchmark for robustness coverage, Clinical PBT plans were less robust. However, all PBT plans were successfully modified to meet worst-case CTV benchmark with limited clinically expected impact on organ at risk dosimetry. Consideration should be made to adopt these benchmark criteria for prostate PBT.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Particle Therapy
International Journal of Particle Therapy Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
23
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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