放疗计划稳健性评价:系统文献综述。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
S Kim, D Bernstein, A Taylor
{"title":"放疗计划稳健性评价:系统文献综述。","authors":"S Kim, D Bernstein, A Taylor","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Advances in radiotherapy have led to increasingly conformal and complex treatment plans. The progressive reduction in safety margins around the target volume and the increased use of hypofractionated radiotherapy further heighten their vulnerability to systematic geometric uncertainties, which may compromise target volume coverage and increase doses to normal tissues. Evaluating treatment plan robustness, therefore, is crucial to ensuring the safe and effective delivery of radiotherapy. This systematic literature review provides a comprehensive overview of current practices for assessing treatment plan robustness across radiotherapy modalities.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A Pubmed search was conducted for studies published up to July 2025 that evaluated plan robustness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 287 publications, 225 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (173 of 225) focused on proton therapy, with setup (198 studies) and range (184 studies) being the most commonly considered uncertainties. Robustness evaluation methods varied widely and were categorised as dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based, voxel-based and radiobiological metrics. The most commonly used method for evaluating plan robustness involved visualising DVHs by overlapping those from multiple uncertainty scenarios to represent all possible variations. Frequently used dosimetric parameters for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage included variations of CTV D95%, D98% and V95% and the proportion of scenarios in which CTV D98%>95%. Voxel-based metrics, such as Max-Min dose distributions and voxel-wise dose reconstructions, provided spatial information on areas susceptible to uncertainties. Radiobiological metrics assessed robustness through changes in tumour control and normal tissue complication probabilities, highlighting the clinical impact of dose variations arising from uncertainty scenarios.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Currently, there is no international consensus on evaluating plan robustness. We recommend combining DVH-based metrics with spatially informative voxel-based approaches. Establishing a standardised framework for robustness evaluation, along with integrating commercial robust evaluation software tools that enable the generation of these metrics, will be essential for its adoption in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":"48 ","pages":"103938"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Radiotherapy Plan Robustness: A Systematic Literature Review.\",\"authors\":\"S Kim, D Bernstein, A Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103938\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Advances in radiotherapy have led to increasingly conformal and complex treatment plans. The progressive reduction in safety margins around the target volume and the increased use of hypofractionated radiotherapy further heighten their vulnerability to systematic geometric uncertainties, which may compromise target volume coverage and increase doses to normal tissues. Evaluating treatment plan robustness, therefore, is crucial to ensuring the safe and effective delivery of radiotherapy. This systematic literature review provides a comprehensive overview of current practices for assessing treatment plan robustness across radiotherapy modalities.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A Pubmed search was conducted for studies published up to July 2025 that evaluated plan robustness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 287 publications, 225 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (173 of 225) focused on proton therapy, with setup (198 studies) and range (184 studies) being the most commonly considered uncertainties. Robustness evaluation methods varied widely and were categorised as dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based, voxel-based and radiobiological metrics. The most commonly used method for evaluating plan robustness involved visualising DVHs by overlapping those from multiple uncertainty scenarios to represent all possible variations. Frequently used dosimetric parameters for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage included variations of CTV D95%, D98% and V95% and the proportion of scenarios in which CTV D98%>95%. Voxel-based metrics, such as Max-Min dose distributions and voxel-wise dose reconstructions, provided spatial information on areas susceptible to uncertainties. Radiobiological metrics assessed robustness through changes in tumour control and normal tissue complication probabilities, highlighting the clinical impact of dose variations arising from uncertainty scenarios.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Currently, there is no international consensus on evaluating plan robustness. We recommend combining DVH-based metrics with spatially informative voxel-based approaches. Establishing a standardised framework for robustness evaluation, along with integrating commercial robust evaluation software tools that enable the generation of these metrics, will be essential for its adoption in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\"48 \",\"pages\":\"103938\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2025.103938\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2025.103938","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:放射治疗的进步导致越来越多的适形和复杂的治疗方案。靶体积周围安全边界的逐渐减小和低分割放疗的增加使用进一步增加了它们对系统几何不确定性的脆弱性,这可能损害靶体积的覆盖范围并增加对正常组织的剂量。因此,评估治疗计划的稳健性对于确保放射治疗的安全有效递送至关重要。这一系统的文献综述提供了评估治疗计划稳健性的当前实践的全面概述。材料和方法:对2025年7月之前发表的评估计划稳健性的研究进行了Pubmed检索。结果:287篇文献中,225篇符合纳入标准。大多数研究(225项研究中的173项)集中在质子治疗上,最常见的不确定性是设置(198项研究)和范围(184项研究)。鲁棒性评估方法差异很大,分为基于剂量-体积直方图(DVH)、基于体素和放射生物学指标。评估计划鲁棒性最常用的方法是通过重叠来自多个不确定性情景的dvh来可视化dvh,以表示所有可能的变化。临床靶体积(CTV)覆盖率常用的剂量学参数包括CTV D95%、D98%和V95%的变化,以及CTV D98%和bb0 95%的情况比例。基于体素的度量,如最大-最小剂量分布和体素剂量重建,提供了易受不确定性影响区域的空间信息。放射生物学指标通过肿瘤控制和正常组织并发症概率的变化来评估稳健性,强调了不确定情景引起的剂量变化的临床影响。结论:目前国际上对计划稳健性评价尚无共识。我们建议将基于dvh的度量与基于空间信息体素的方法相结合。建立一个标准化的稳健性评估框架,以及集成商业稳健性评估软件工具,使这些指标能够生成,对于在临床实践中采用它是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Radiotherapy Plan Robustness: A Systematic Literature Review.

Aims: Advances in radiotherapy have led to increasingly conformal and complex treatment plans. The progressive reduction in safety margins around the target volume and the increased use of hypofractionated radiotherapy further heighten their vulnerability to systematic geometric uncertainties, which may compromise target volume coverage and increase doses to normal tissues. Evaluating treatment plan robustness, therefore, is crucial to ensuring the safe and effective delivery of radiotherapy. This systematic literature review provides a comprehensive overview of current practices for assessing treatment plan robustness across radiotherapy modalities.

Materials and methods: A Pubmed search was conducted for studies published up to July 2025 that evaluated plan robustness.

Results: Of 287 publications, 225 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (173 of 225) focused on proton therapy, with setup (198 studies) and range (184 studies) being the most commonly considered uncertainties. Robustness evaluation methods varied widely and were categorised as dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based, voxel-based and radiobiological metrics. The most commonly used method for evaluating plan robustness involved visualising DVHs by overlapping those from multiple uncertainty scenarios to represent all possible variations. Frequently used dosimetric parameters for clinical target volume (CTV) coverage included variations of CTV D95%, D98% and V95% and the proportion of scenarios in which CTV D98%>95%. Voxel-based metrics, such as Max-Min dose distributions and voxel-wise dose reconstructions, provided spatial information on areas susceptible to uncertainties. Radiobiological metrics assessed robustness through changes in tumour control and normal tissue complication probabilities, highlighting the clinical impact of dose variations arising from uncertainty scenarios.

Conclusion: Currently, there is no international consensus on evaluating plan robustness. We recommend combining DVH-based metrics with spatially informative voxel-based approaches. Establishing a standardised framework for robustness evaluation, along with integrating commercial robust evaluation software tools that enable the generation of these metrics, will be essential for its adoption in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical oncology
Clinical oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
332
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信