Liu Wei, Liao Zhongxing, Schild Steven E, Liu Zhong, Li Heng, Li Yupeng, Park Peter C, Li Xiaoqiang, Stoker Joshua, Shen Jiajian, Keole Sameer, Anand Aman, Fatyga Mirek, Dong Lei, Sahoo Narayan, Vora Sujay, Wong William, Zhu X Ronald, Bues Martin, Mohan Radhe
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Mar-Apr;5(2):e77-86. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2014.08.002. Epub 2014 Sep 11.
We compared conventionally optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans against worst-case scenario optimized treatment plans for lung cancer. The comparison of the 2 IMPT optimization strategies focused on the resulting plans' ability to retain dose objectives under the influence of patient setup, inherent proton range uncertainty, and dose perturbation caused by respiratory motion.
For each of the 9 lung cancer cases, 2 treatment plans were created that accounted for treatment uncertainties in 2 different ways. The first used the conventional method: delivery of prescribed dose to the planning target volume that is geometrically expanded from the internal target volume (ITV). The second used a worst-case scenario optimization scheme that addressed setup and range uncertainties through beamlet optimization. The plan optimality and plan robustness were calculated and compared. Furthermore, the effects on dose distributions of changes in patient anatomy attributable to respiratory motion were investigated for both strategies by comparing the corresponding plan evaluation metrics at the end-inspiration and end-expiration phase and absolute differences between these phases. The mean plan evaluation metrics of the 2 groups were compared with 2-sided paired Student t tests.
Without respiratory motion considered, we affirmed that worst-case scenario optimization is superior to planning target volume-based conventional optimization in terms of plan robustness and optimality. With respiratory motion considered, worst-case scenario optimization still achieved more robust dose distributions to respiratory motion for targets and comparable or even better plan optimality (D95% ITV, 96.6% vs 96.1% [P = .26]; D5%- D95% ITV, 10.0% vs 12.3% [P = .082]; D1% spinal cord, 31.8% vs 36.5% [P = .035]).
Worst-case scenario optimization led to superior solutions for lung IMPT. Despite the fact that worst-case scenario optimization did not explicitly account for respiratory motion, it produced motion-resistant treatment plans. However, further research is needed to incorporate respiratory motion into IMPT robust optimization.
我们将传统优化的调强质子治疗(IMPT)计划与肺癌的最坏情况优化治疗计划进行了比较。两种IMPT优化策略的比较重点在于所得计划在患者摆位、质子固有射程不确定性以及呼吸运动引起的剂量扰动影响下保持剂量目标的能力。
对于9例肺癌病例中的每一例,创建了2个治疗计划,以两种不同方式考虑治疗不确定性。第一个采用传统方法:将规定剂量输送到从内部靶区(ITV)几何扩展的计划靶区(PTV)。第二个采用最坏情况优化方案,通过子野优化解决摆位和射程不确定性问题。计算并比较了计划的最优性和稳健性。此外,通过比较吸气末和呼气末阶段的相应计划评估指标以及这些阶段之间的绝对差异,研究了两种策略中呼吸运动引起的患者解剖结构变化对剂量分布的影响。两组的平均计划评估指标采用双侧配对t检验进行比较。
在不考虑呼吸运动的情况下,我们确认在计划稳健性和最优性方面,最坏情况优化优于基于计划靶区的传统优化。在考虑呼吸运动的情况下,最坏情况优化对于靶区仍能实现对呼吸运动更稳健的剂量分布,并且计划最优性相当甚至更好(D95% ITV,96.6% 对 96.1% [P = 0.26];D5%-D95% ITV,10.0% 对 12.3% [P = 0.082];D1%脊髓,31.8% 对 36.5% [P = 0.035])。
最坏情况优化为肺癌IMPT带来了更好的解决方案。尽管最坏情况优化没有明确考虑呼吸运动,但它产生了抗运动的治疗计划。然而,需要进一步研究将呼吸运动纳入IMPT稳健优化。