Beam configuration selection for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy in cervical cancer using Pareto front comparison

Abstract

The Pareto front reflects the optimal trade-offs between conflicting objectives and can be used to quantify the effect of different beam configurations on plan robustness and dose-volume histogram parameters. Therefore, our aim was to develop and implement a method to automatically approach the Pareto front in robust intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning. Additionally, clinically relevant Pareto fronts based on different beam configurations will be derived and compared to enable beam configuration selection in cervical cancer proton therapy.A method to iteratively approach the Pareto front by automatically generating robustly optimized IMPT plans was developed. To verify plan quality, IMPT plans were evaluated on robustness by simulating range and position errors and recalculating the dose. For five retrospectively selected cervical cancer patients, this method was applied for IMPT plans with three different beam configurations using two, three and four beams. 3D Pareto fronts were optimized on target coverage (CTV D99%) and OAR doses (rectum V30Gy; bladder V40Gy). Per patient, proportions of non-approved IMPT plans were determined and differences between patient-specific Pareto fronts were quantified in terms of CTV D99%, rectum V30Gy and bladder V40Gy to perform beam configuration selection.Per patient and beam configuration, Pareto fronts were successfully sampled based on 200 IMPT plans of which on average 29% were non-approved plans. In all patients, IMPT plans based on the 2-beam set-up were completely dominated by plans with the 3-beam and 4-beam configuration. Compared to the 3-beam set-up, the 4-beam set-up increased the median CTV D99% on average by 0.2 Gy and decreased the median rectum V30Gy and median bladder V40Gy on average by 3.6% and 1.3%, respectively.This study demonstrates a method to automatically derive Pareto fronts in robust IMPT planning. For all patients, the defined four-beam configuration was found optimal in terms of plan robustness, target coverage and OAR sparing.