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]

Clinical advantages of incorporating predicted weekly anatomy in IMPT optimization with reduced setup error

Robust optimization incorporating weekly predicted anatomtical CTs in IMPT of nasopharyngeal cancer

Effectiveness of Robust Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning for Head and Neck Cancers

Robust Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy to Account for Anatomy Changes in Lung Cancer Patients

The influence of daily imaging and target margin reduction on secondary cancer risk in image-guided and adaptive proton therapy

SU‐F‐T‐205: Effectiveness of Robust Treatment Planning to Account for Inter‐ Fractional Variation in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Head Neck Cancer

In silico evaluation and feasibility of near margin-less head and neck daily adaptive radiotherapy

Divergent Clinical Equivalence Findings from DVH and NTCP Metrics for Alternative OAR Delineations with Increasing Setup Variability in Head-and-Neck Radiotherapy

Robust optimization strategies for contour uncertainties in online adaptive radiation therapy

Multiple-CT optimization: An adaptive optimization method to account for anatomical changes in intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancers

Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers.

Inter-fraction Robustness of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy in the Post-Operative Treatment of Oropharyngeal and Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinomas

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

Weekly assessment of volumetric and dosimetric changes during volumetric modulated arc therapy of locally advanced head and neck carcinoma: Implications for adaptive radiation therapy—A prospective study

Adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy using 4D robust planning: a proof-of-concept for the application of dose mimicking approach

Impact of robust treatment planning on single- and multi-field optimized plans for proton beam therapy of unilateral head and neck target volumes

The Clinical Feasibility and Effect of Online Cone Beam Computer Tomography-Guided Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Cancer

An On-Line Replanning Method for Head and Neck Adaptive Radiotherapy

SU-GG-J-109: A Study on Image Guided Radiotherapy Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) for Head and Neck Cancer IMRT Patient Setup

SU-E-J-13: Dosimetric Discrepancy Investigation with Cone-Beam CT for Adaptive RT of Head-and-Neck Cancer

A fast and robust constraint-based online re-optimization approach for automated online adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy in head and neck cancer