skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Robust optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with soft spot sensitivity regularization

Journal Article · · Medical Physics
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13344· OSTI ID:1612697
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [2];  [2];  [3];  [3];  [1]
  1. Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA (United States)
  2. Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  3. Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (United States)

Purpose Proton dose distribution is sensitive to uncertainties in range estimation and patient positioning. Currently, the proton robustness is managed by worst‐case scenario optimization methods, which are computationally inefficient. To overcome these challenges, we develop a novel intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization method that integrates dose fidelity with a sensitivity term that describes dose perturbation as the result of range and positioning uncertainties. Methods In the integrated optimization framework, the optimization cost function is formulated to include two terms: a dose fidelity term and a robustness term penalizing the inner product of the scanning spot sensitivity and intensity. The sensitivity of an IMPT scanning spot to perturbations is defined as the dose distribution variation induced by range and positioning errors. To evaluate the sensitivity, the spatial gradient of the dose distribution of a specific spot is first calculated. The spot sensitivity is then determined by the total absolute value of the directional gradients of all affected voxels. The fast iterative shrinkage‐thresholding algorithm is used to solve the optimization problem. This method was tested on three skull base tumor (SBT) patients and three bilateral head‐and‐neck (H&N) patients. The proposed sensitivity‐regularized method (SenR) was implemented on both clinic target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). They were compared with conventional PTV‐based optimization method (Conv) and CTV‐based voxel‐wise worst‐case scenario optimization approach (WC). Results Under the nominal condition without uncertainties, the three methods achieved similar CTV dose coverage, while the CTV‐based SenR approach better spared organs at risks (OARs) compared with the WC approach, with an average reduction of [Dmean, Dmax] of [4.72, 3.38]  GyRBE for the SBT cases and [2.54, 3.33] GyRBE for the H&N cases. The OAR sparing of the PTV‐based SenR method was comparable with the WC method. The WC method, and SenR approaches all improved the plan robustness from the conventional PTV‐based method. On average, under range uncertainties, the lowest [D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [93.75%, 88.47%, 47.37%] in the Conv method, to [99.28%, 99.51%, 86.64%] in the WC method, [97.71%, 97.85%, 81.65%] in the SenR‐CTV method and [98.77%, 99.30%, 85.12%] in the SenR‐PTV method, respectively. Under setup uncertainties, the average lowest [D95%, V95%, V100%] of CTV were increased from [95.35%, 94.92%, 65.12%] in the Conv method, to [99.43%, 99.63%, 87.12%] in the WC method, [96.97%, 97.13%, 77.86%] in the SenR‐CTV method, and [98.21%, 98.34%, 83.88%] in the SenR‐PTV method, respectively. The runtime of the SenR optimization is eight times shorter than that of the voxel‐wise worst‐case method. Conclusion We developed a novel computationally efficient robust optimization method for IMPT. The robustness is calculated as the spot sensitivity to both range and shift perturbations. The dose fidelity term is then regularized by the sensitivity term for the flexibility and trade‐off between the dosimetry and the robustness. In the stress test, SenR is more resilient to unexpected uncertainties. These advantages in combination with its fast computation time make it a viable candidate for clinical IMPT planning.

Research Organization:
RadiaSoft, LLC, Boulder, CO (United States); RadiaBeam Technologies, Santa Monica, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Organization:
USDOE Office of Science (SC); National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Grant/Contract Number:
SC0017057; SC0017687; R44CA183390; R43CA183390; R01CA188300; DE‐SC0017057; DE‐SC0017687
OSTI ID:
1612697
Alternate ID(s):
OSTI ID: 1491429
Journal Information:
Medical Physics, Vol. 46, Issue 3; ISSN 0094-2405
Publisher:
American Association of Physicists in MedicineCopyright Statement
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 8 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

References (36)

GPU-based fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for proton therapy journal November 2012
Intensity modulated proton therapy: A clinical example journal March 2001
An algorithm to assess the need for clinical Monte Carlo dose calculation for small proton therapy fields based on quantification of tissue heterogeneity: Assessing the need for Monte Carlo dose calculation for small proton beams journal July 2013
Beam angle selection incorporation of anatomical heterogeneities for pencil beam scanning charged-particle therapy journal November 2016
Integrated beam orientation and scanning-spot optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy for brain and unilateral head and neck tumors journal March 2018
Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers journal November 2014
PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization: PTV+PRV-based optimization vs robust optimization journal January 2013
Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy journal April 2007
A Beam-Specific Planning Target Volume (PTV) Design for Proton Therapy to Account for Setup and Range Uncertainties journal February 2012
Quantifying lateral tissue heterogeneities in hadron therapy: Quantifying lateral tissue heterogeneities in hadron therapy journal March 2007
Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy journal February 2008
Robust radiotherapy planning journal November 2018
Efficiency of analytical and sampling-based uncertainty propagation in intensity-modulated proton therapy journal June 2017
Validation of a GPU-based Monte Carlo code (gPMC) for proton radiation therapy: clinical cases study journal February 2015
Is it necessary to plan with safety margins for actively scanned proton therapy? journal June 2011
Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques: Robust optimization in IMPT journal May 2012
Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning: Optimizing IMPT plans under uncertainty journal December 2008
Potentials of robust intensity modulated scanning proton plans for locally advanced lung cancer in comparison to intensity modulated photon plans journal July 2012
Coverage optimized planning: Probabilistic treatment planning based on dose coverage histogram criteria: Coverage optimized planning journal January 2010
State of the art on dose prescription, reporting and recording in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (ICRU report No. 83) journal October 2011
A First-Order Primal-Dual Algorithm for Convex Problems with Applications to Imaging journal December 2010
Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy: Robust optimization of IMPT journal February 2012
The price of robustness; impact of worst-case optimization on organ-at-risk dose and complication probability in intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients journal July 2016
Selective robust optimization: A new intensity-modulated proton therapy optimization strategy: Selective robust optimization journal July 2015
Analytical probabilistic modeling for radiation therapy treatment planning journal July 2013
Development of the open-source dose calculation and optimization toolkit matRad journal May 2017
Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy: Minimax optimization for handling uncertainties in proton therapy journal March 2011
Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 2: the potential effects of inter-fraction and inter-field motions journal January 2008
Advantages and limitations of the ‘worst case scenario’ approach in IMPT treatment planning journal February 2013
Sensitivity of intensity modulated proton therapy plans to changes in patient weight journal February 2008
Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties journal January 2008
A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems journal January 2009
Recent developments and comprehensive evaluations of a GPU-based Monte Carlo package for proton therapy journal October 2016
A critical evaluation of worst case optimization methods for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy planning: Critical evaluation of worst case optimization for IMPT journal July 2014
Radiological Use of Fast Protons journal November 1946
Including robustness in multi-criteria optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy journal January 2012