Abstract:Purpose: Robust optimization leads to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans that are less sensitive to uncertainties and superior in terms of organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing, target dose coverage, and homogeneity compared to planning target volume (PTV)-based optimized plans. Robust optimization incorporates setup and range uncertainties, which implicitly adds margins to both targets and OARs and is also able to compensate for perturbations in dose distributions within targets and OARs caused by uncertainties. In contrast, the traditional PTV-based optimization considers only setup uncertainties and adds a margin only to targets but no margins to the OARs. It also ignores range uncertainty. The purpose of this work is to determine if robustly optimized plans are superior to PTV-based plans simply because the latter do not assign margins to OARs during optimization.Methods: The authors retrospectively selected from their institutional database five patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer and one with prostate cancer for this analysis. Using their original images and prescriptions, the authors created new IMPT plans using three methods: PTV-based optimization, optimization based on the PTV and planning risk volumes (PRVs) (i.e., "PTV+PRV-based optimization"), and robust optimization using the "worst-case" dose distribution. The PRVs were generated by uniformly expanding OARs by 3 mm for the H&N cases and 5 mm for the prostate case. The dose-volume histograms (DVHs) from the worst-case dose distributions were used to assess and compare plan quality. Families of DVHs for each uncertainty for all structures of interest were plotted along with the nominal DVHs. The width of the "bands" of DVHs was used to quantify the plan sensitivity to uncertainty.Results: Compared with conventional PTV-based and PTV+PRV-based planning, robust optimization led to a smaller bandwidth for the targets in the face of uncertainties {clinical target volume [CTV] bandwidth: 0.59 [robust], 3.53 [PTV+PRV], and 3.53 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}. It also resulted in higher doses to 95% of the CTV {D-95%:60.8 [robust] vs 59.3 [PTV+PRV] vs 59.6 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}, smaller D-5% (doses to 5% of the CTV) minus D-95% {D-5% - D-95%: 13.2 [robust] vs 17.5 [PTV+PRV] vs 17.2 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}. At the same time, the robust optimization method irradiated OARs less {maximum dose to 1 cm(3) of the brainstem: 48.3 [robust] vs 48.8 [PTV+PRV] vs 51.2 [PTV] Gy (RBE); mean dose to the oral cavity: 22.3 [robust] vs 22.9 [PTV+PRV] vs 26.1 [PTV] Gy (RBE); maximum dose to 1% of the normal brain: 66.0 [robust] vs 68.0 [PTV+PRV] vs 69.3 [PTV] Gy (RBE)}.Conclusions: For H&N cases studied, OAR sparing in PTV+PRV-based optimization was inferior compared to robust optimization but was superior compared to PTV-based optimization; however, target dose robustness and homogeneity were comparable in the PTV+PRV-based and PTV-based optimizations. The same pattern held for the prostate case. The authors' data suggest that the superiority of robust optimization is not due simply to its inclusion of margins for OARs, but that this is due mainly to the ability of robust optimization to compensate for perturbations in dose distributions within target volumes and normal tissues caused by uncertainties. (C) 2013 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4774363]

Robustness of a Pretrained Dose-Volume Histogram Estimation Model on Knowledge-Based Planning of Other Types

Impact Of Interfractional Motion On Hypofractionated Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy And Vmat Delivery For Prostate Cancer

Applying a RapidPlan model trained on a technique and orientation to another: a feasibility and dosimetric evaluation.

A dosimetric evaluation of knowledge-based VMAT planning with simultaneous integrated boosting for rectal cancer patients.

Knowledge-based Semi-Automated Optimization of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Plans Using a Volume Modulated Arc Therapy-Configured Model

Efficient Method to Train Pdvh Models with Plan Quality Variation Present in the Training Cohort

Study of PlanIQ Feasibility DVH Usage to Improve Cervical Cancer Treatment Plan

Effect of Different Volume Dose Calculators on Configuring a DVH-Estimation Model for Knowledge-Based Lung SABR Planning

Enhancing dosimetric practices through knowledge-based predictive models: a case study on VMAT prostate irradiation

SU-F-T-348: the Impact of Model Library Population on RapidPlan Based Dose-Volume Histograms (dvhs) Prediction for Rectal Cancer Patients Treated with Volumetric-Modulated Radiotherapy (VMAT)

An Interactive Plan and Model Evolution Method for Knowledge‐based Pelvic VMAT Planning

Modeling Organs at Risk Dose Sparing in Head and Neck Tomotherapy and Imrt Plans: A Comparison Study

Impact of Positioning Errors on Dose Coverage for Breath-Hold Left-Sided Breast Treatments

MO‐A‐137‐01: BEST IN PHYSICS (THERAPY) ‐ Predictive DVH Models Developed at a Large Institution Impact Clinically Relevant DVH Parameters in IMRT Plans at an Unrelated Radiotherapy Facility

Effectiveness of a 2D-Transit Epid-Based In-Vivo Dosimetry System in Highlighting the Accuracy of Target Dose Coverage for Post-Mastectomy VMAT Irradiation

A Robust Optimization Algorithm for Image-Guided Cervical Cancer Brachytherapy

The Model Training of Knowledge-Based Radiotherapy Treatment Planning and Its Preliminary Application

Ptv-Based Impt Optimization Incorporating Planning Risk Volumes Vs Robust Optimization

Fully automatic volumetric modulated arc therapy planning based on dose prediction combined with an iterative optimization algorithm

Dosimetric Performance Of A New Ring-Gantry Linear Accelerator For Imrt And Vmat Prostate Plans

Dosimetry and efficiency comparison of knowledge-based and manual planning using volumetric modulated arc therapy for craniospinal irradiation