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

Title: SU-E-T-574: Novel Chance-Constrained Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning to Account for Range and Patient Setup Uncertainties

Abstract

Purpose: We propose to apply a probabilistic framework, namely chanceconstrained optimization, in the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning subject to range and patient setup uncertainties. The purpose is to hedge against the influence of uncertainties and improve robustness of treatment plans. Methods: IMPT plans were generated for a typical prostate patient. Nine dose distributions are computed — the nominal one and one each for ±5mm setup uncertainties along three cardinal axes and for ±3.5% range uncertainty. These nine dose distributions are supplied to the solver CPLEX as chance constraints to explicitly control plan robustness under these representative uncertainty scenarios with certain probability. This probability is determined by the tolerance level. We make the chance-constrained model tractable by converting it to a mixed integer optimization problem. The quality of plans derived from this method is evaluated using dose-volume histogram (DVH) indices such as tumor dose homogeneity (D5% – D95%) and coverage (D95%) and normal tissue sparing like V70 of rectum, V65, and V40 of bladder. We also compare the results from this novel method with the conventional PTV-based method to further demonstrate its effectiveness Results: Our model can yield clinically acceptable plans within 50 seconds. The chance-constrained optimization produces IMPT plansmore » with comparable target coverage, better target dose homogeneity, and better normal tissue sparing compared to the PTV-based optimization [D95% CTV: 67.9 vs 68.7 (Gy), D5% – D95% CTV: 11.9 vs 18 (Gy), V70 rectum: 0.0 % vs 0.33%, V65 bladder: 2.17% vs 9.33%, V40 bladder: 8.83% vs 21.83%]. It also simultaneously makes the plan more robust [Width of DVH band at D50%: 2.0 vs 10.0 (Gy)]. The tolerance level may be varied to control the tradeoff between plan robustness and quality. Conclusion: The chance-constrained optimization generates superior IMPT plan compared to the PTV-based optimization with explicit control of plan robustness. NIH/NCI K25CA168984, Eagles Cancer Research Career Development, The Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research, Mayo ASU Seed Grant, and The Kemper Marley Foundation.« less

Authors:
;  [1];  [2]
  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ - Arizona (United States)
  2. Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22496288
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLADDER; GY RANGE 01-10; GY RANGE 10-100; NEOPLASMS; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENTS; RADIOTHERAPY; SPATIAL DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS

Citation Formats

An, Y, Liang, J, and Liu, W. SU-E-T-574: Novel Chance-Constrained Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning to Account for Range and Patient Setup Uncertainties. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924936.
An, Y, Liang, J, & Liu, W. SU-E-T-574: Novel Chance-Constrained Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning to Account for Range and Patient Setup Uncertainties. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924936.
An, Y, Liang, J, and Liu, W. Mon . "SU-E-T-574: Novel Chance-Constrained Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning to Account for Range and Patient Setup Uncertainties". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924936.
@article{osti_22496288,
title = {SU-E-T-574: Novel Chance-Constrained Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning to Account for Range and Patient Setup Uncertainties},
author = {An, Y and Liang, J and Liu, W},
abstractNote = {Purpose: We propose to apply a probabilistic framework, namely chanceconstrained optimization, in the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning subject to range and patient setup uncertainties. The purpose is to hedge against the influence of uncertainties and improve robustness of treatment plans. Methods: IMPT plans were generated for a typical prostate patient. Nine dose distributions are computed — the nominal one and one each for ±5mm setup uncertainties along three cardinal axes and for ±3.5% range uncertainty. These nine dose distributions are supplied to the solver CPLEX as chance constraints to explicitly control plan robustness under these representative uncertainty scenarios with certain probability. This probability is determined by the tolerance level. We make the chance-constrained model tractable by converting it to a mixed integer optimization problem. The quality of plans derived from this method is evaluated using dose-volume histogram (DVH) indices such as tumor dose homogeneity (D5% – D95%) and coverage (D95%) and normal tissue sparing like V70 of rectum, V65, and V40 of bladder. We also compare the results from this novel method with the conventional PTV-based method to further demonstrate its effectiveness Results: Our model can yield clinically acceptable plans within 50 seconds. The chance-constrained optimization produces IMPT plans with comparable target coverage, better target dose homogeneity, and better normal tissue sparing compared to the PTV-based optimization [D95% CTV: 67.9 vs 68.7 (Gy), D5% – D95% CTV: 11.9 vs 18 (Gy), V70 rectum: 0.0 % vs 0.33%, V65 bladder: 2.17% vs 9.33%, V40 bladder: 8.83% vs 21.83%]. It also simultaneously makes the plan more robust [Width of DVH band at D50%: 2.0 vs 10.0 (Gy)]. The tolerance level may be varied to control the tradeoff between plan robustness and quality. Conclusion: The chance-constrained optimization generates superior IMPT plan compared to the PTV-based optimization with explicit control of plan robustness. NIH/NCI K25CA168984, Eagles Cancer Research Career Development, The Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research, Mayo ASU Seed Grant, and The Kemper Marley Foundation.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924936},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: We propose to apply a robust optimization model based on fuzzy-logic constraints in the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning subject to range and patient setup uncertainties. The purpose is to ensure the plan robustness under uncertainty and obtain the best trade-off between tumor dose coverage and organ-at-risk(OAR) sparing. Methods: Two IMPT plans were generated for 3 head-and-neck cancer patients: one used the planning target volume(PTV) method; the other used the fuzzy robust optimization method. In the latter method, nine dose distributions were computed - the nominal one and one each for ±3mm setup uncertainties along three cardinal axes andmore » for ±3.5% range uncertainty. For tumors, these nine dose distributions were explicitly controlled by adding hard constraints with adjustable parameters. For OARs, fuzzy constraints that allow the dose to vary within a certain range were used so that the tumor dose distribution was guaranteed by minimum compromise of that of OARs. We rendered this model tractable by converting the fuzzy constraints to linear constraints. The plan quality was evaluated using dose-volume histogram(DVH) indices such as tumor dose coverage(D95%), homogeneity(D5%-D95%), plan robustness(DVH band at D95%), and OAR sparing like D1% of brain and D1% of brainstem. Results: Our model could yield clinically acceptable plans. The fuzzy-logic robust optimization method produced IMPT plans with comparable target dose coverage and homogeneity compared to the PTV method(unit: Gy[RBE]; average[min, max])(CTV D95%: 59 [52.7, 63.5] vs 53.5[46.4, 60.1], CTV D5% - D95%: 11.1[5.3, 18.6] vs 14.4[9.2, 21.5]). It also generated more robust plans(CTV DVH band at D95%: 3.8[1.2, 5.6] vs 11.5[6.2, 16.7]). The parameters of tumor constraints could be adjusted to control the tradeoff between tumor coverage and OAR sparing. Conclusion: The fuzzy-logic robust optimization generates superior IMPT with minimum compromise of OAR sparing. This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute Career Developmental Award K25CA168984, by the Fraternal Order of Eagles Cancer Research Fund Career Development Award, by The Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research, by Mayo Arizona State University Seed Grant, and by The Kemper Marley Foundation. eRA Person ID(s) for the Principal Investigator: 11017970 (Research Supported by National Institutes of Health)« less
  • Purpose: Non-uniform fractionation, i.e. delivering distinct dose distributions in two subsequent fractions, can potentially improve outcomes by increasing biological dose to the target without increasing dose to healthy tissues. This is possible if both fractions deliver a similar dose to normal tissues (exploit the fractionation effect) but high single fraction doses to subvolumes of the target (hypofractionation). Optimization of such treatment plans can be formulated using biological equivalent dose (BED), but leads to intractable nonconvex optimization problems. We introduce a novel optimization approach to address this challenge. Methods: We first optimize a reference IMPT plan using standard techniques that deliversmore » a homogeneous target dose in both fractions. The method then divides the pencil beams into two sets, which are assigned to either fraction one or fraction two. The total intensity of each pencil beam, and therefore the physical dose, remains unchanged compared to the reference plan. The objectives are to maximize the mean BED in the target and to minimize the mean BED in normal tissues, which is a quadratic function of the pencil beam weights. The optimal reassignment of pencil beams to one of the two fractions is formulated as a binary quadratic optimization problem. A near-optimal solution to this problem can be obtained by convex relaxation and randomized rounding. Results: The method is demonstrated for a large arteriovenous malformation (AVM) case treated in two fractions. The algorithm yields a treatment plan, which delivers a high dose to parts of the AVM in one of the fractions, but similar doses in both fractions to the normal brain tissue adjacent to the AVM. Using the approach, the mean BED in the target was increased by approximately 10% compared to what would have been possible with a uniform reference plan for the same normal tissue mean BED.« less
  • Purpose: The current practice of considering the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning is to use a generic RBE value of 1.1. However, RBE is indeed a variable depending on the dose per fraction, the linear energy transfer, tissue parameters, etc. In this study, we investigate the impact of using variable RBE based optimization (vRBE-OPT) on IMPT dose distributions compared by conventional fixed RBE based optimization (fRBE-OPT). Methods: Proton plans of three head and neck cancer patients were included for our study. In order to calculate variable RBE, tissue specific parameters were obtainedmore » from the literature and dose averaged LET values were calculated by Monte Carlo simulations. Biological effects were calculated using the linear quadratic model and they were utilized in the variable RBE based optimization. We used a Polak-Ribiere conjugate gradient algorithm to solve the model. In fixed RBE based optimization, we used conventional physical dose optimization to optimize doses weighted by 1.1. IMPT plans for each patient were optimized by both methods (vRBE-OPT and fRBE-OPT). Both variable and fixed RBE weighted dose distributions were calculated for both methods and compared by dosimetric measures. Results: The variable RBE weighted dose distributions were more homogenous within the targets, compared with the fixed RBE weighted dose distributions for the plans created by vRBE-OPT. We observed that there were noticeable deviations between variable and fixed RBE weighted dose distributions if the plan were optimized by fRBE-OPT. For organs at risk sparing, dose distributions from both methods were comparable. Conclusion: Biological dose based optimization rather than conventional physical dose based optimization in IMPT planning may bring benefit in improved tumor control when evaluating biologically equivalent dose, without sacrificing OAR sparing, for head and neck cancer patients. The research is supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grant No. 2U19CA021239-35.« less
  • Purpose This study compares the dosimetric parameters in treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma between intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity modulated x-ray radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: We studied four patients treated at our institution. All patients were simulated supine with 4D-CT using a GE light speed simulator with a maximum slice thickness of 3mm. The average CT and an internal target volume to account for respiration motion were used for planning. Both IMRT and IMPT plans were created using Elekta’s CMSXiO treatment planning system (TPS). The prescription dose was 58.05 CGE in 15 fractions. The IMRT plansmore » had five beams with combination of co-planar and non-co-planar. The IMPT plans had 2 to 3 beams. Dose comparison was performed based on the averaged results of the four patients. Results The mean dose and V95% to PTV were 58.24CGE, 98.57% for IMPT, versus 57.34CGE and 96.68% for IMRT, respectively. The V10, V20, V30 and mean dose of the normal liver for IMPT were 23.10%, 18.61%, 13.75% and 9.78 CGE; and 47.19%, 37.55%, 22.73% and 17.12CGE for IMRT. The spinal cord didn’t receive any dose in IMPT technique, but received a maximum of 18.77CGE for IMRT. The IMPT gave lower maximum dose to the stomach as compared to IMRT (19.26 vs 26.35CGE). V14 for left and right kidney was 0% and 2.32% for IMPT and 3.89% and 29.54% for IMRT. The mean dose, V35, V40 and V45 for small bowl were similar in both techniques, 0.74CGE, 6.27cc, 4.85cc and 3.53 cc for IMPT, 3.47CGE, 9.73cc, 7.61cc 5.35cc for IMRT. Conclusion Based on this study, IMPT plans gave less dose to the critical structures such as normal liver, kidney, stomach and spinal cord as compared to IMRT plans, potentially leading to less toxicity and providing better quality of life for patients.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the potential benefits of robust optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy(IMPT) treatment planning to account for inter-fractional variation for Head Neck Cancer(HNC). Methods: One patient with bilateral HNC previous treated at our institution was used in this study. Ten daily CBCTs were selected. The CT numbers of the CBCTs were corrected by mapping the CT numbers from simulation CT via Deformable Image Registration. The planning target volumes(PTVs) were defined by a 3mm expansion from clinical target volumes(CTVs). The prescription was 70Gy, 54Gy to CTV1, CTV2, and PTV1, PTV2 for robust optimized(RO) and conventionally optimized(CO) plans respectively. Bothmore » techniques were generated by RayStation with the same beam angles: two anterior oblique and two posterior oblique angles. The similar dose constraints were used to achieve 99% of CTV1 received 100% prescription dose while kept the hotspots less than 110% of the prescription. In order to evaluate the dosimetric result through the course of treatment, the contours were deformed from simulation CT to daily CBCTs, modified, and approved by a radiation oncologist. The initial plan on the simulation CT was re-replayed on the daily CBCTs followed the bony alignment. The target coverage was evaluated using the daily doses and the cumulative dose. Results: Eight of 10 daily deliveries with using RO plan achieved at least 95% prescription dose to CTV1 and CTV2, while still kept maximum hotspot less than 112% of prescription compared with only one of 10 for the CO plan to achieve the same standards. For the cumulative doses, the target coverage for both RO and CO plans was quite similar, which was due to the compensation of cold and hot spots. Conclusion: Robust optimization can be effectively applied to compensate for target dose deficit caused by inter-fractional target geometric variation in IMPT treatment planning.« less