TY - JOUR
T1 - 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
AU - Van De Water, Steven
AU - van Dam, Iris
AU - Schaart, Dennis R.
AU - Al-Mamgani, Abrahim
AU - Heijmen, Ben J.M.
AU - Hoogeman, Mischa S.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Purpose To quantify the impact of the degree of robustness against setup errors and range errors on organ-at-risk (OAR) dose and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) in intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients. Material and methods For 20 oropharyngeal cases (10 unilateral and 10 bilateral), robust treatment plans were generated using ‘minimax’ worst-case optimization. We varied the robustness against setup errors (‘setup robustness’) from 1 to 7 mm and the robustness against range errors (‘range robustness’) from 1% to 7% (+1 mm). We evaluated OAR doses and NTCP-values for xerostomia, dysphagia and larynx edema. Results Varying the degree of setup robustness was found to have a considerably larger impact than varying the range robustness. Increasing setup robustness from 1 mm to 3, 5, and 7 mm resulted in average NTCP-values to increase by 1.9, 4.4 and 7.5 percentage point, whereas they increased by only 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 percentage point when increasing range robustness from 1% to 3%, 5% and 7%. The degree of setup robustness was observed to have a clinically significant impact in bilateral cases in particular. Conclusions For oropharyngeal cancer patients, minimizing setup errors should be given a higher priority than minimizing range errors.
AB - Purpose To quantify the impact of the degree of robustness against setup errors and range errors on organ-at-risk (OAR) dose and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) in intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer patients. Material and methods For 20 oropharyngeal cases (10 unilateral and 10 bilateral), robust treatment plans were generated using ‘minimax’ worst-case optimization. We varied the robustness against setup errors (‘setup robustness’) from 1 to 7 mm and the robustness against range errors (‘range robustness’) from 1% to 7% (+1 mm). We evaluated OAR doses and NTCP-values for xerostomia, dysphagia and larynx edema. Results Varying the degree of setup robustness was found to have a considerably larger impact than varying the range robustness. Increasing setup robustness from 1 mm to 3, 5, and 7 mm resulted in average NTCP-values to increase by 1.9, 4.4 and 7.5 percentage point, whereas they increased by only 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 percentage point when increasing range robustness from 1% to 3%, 5% and 7%. The degree of setup robustness was observed to have a clinically significant impact in bilateral cases in particular. Conclusions For oropharyngeal cancer patients, minimizing setup errors should be given a higher priority than minimizing range errors.
KW - Head-and-neck cancer
KW - IMPT
KW - Oropharyngeal cancer
KW - Proton therapy
KW - Robust optimization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975142823&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.04.038
DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.04.038
M3 - Article
C2 - 27178142
AN - SCOPUS:84975142823
VL - 120
SP - 56
EP - 62
JO - Radiotherapy & Oncology
JF - Radiotherapy & Oncology
SN - 0167-8140
IS - 1
ER -