Program Information
Novel Chance-Constrained Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Planning to Account for Range and Patient Setup Uncertainties
y an1*, J Liang2 , W Liu3 , (1) ,,,(2) Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ - Arizona, (3) Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
Presentations
SU-E-T-574 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose:We propose to apply a probabilistic framework, namely chance-constrained 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.
Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: 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.
Contact Email: