Is Robust Optimization Essential When Planning Pencil Beam Scanned Proton Therapy for Intracranial Lesions?

Abstract

Creating intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans usually involves a robust optimization step to account for uncertainties in proton range and positioning instead of using the PTV margins typically seen in photon IMRT planning. Because robust optimization adds significant planning time per iteration, and proton planning typically involves many iterations to obtain an optimal plan, this project evaluates whether a PTV approach can be used to more efficiently create plans for intracranial lesions by comparing plan quality from both approaches to determine if they produce equivalent plans. Five patients with intracranial lesions treated with IMPT at our center were randomly chosen for this study. 3-4 beams were used to treat CTVs ranging between 46 and 246 cc. Patients were treated on a Mevion S250i single-vault proton machine with Hyperscan. Static blocks (7mm conformed to the CTV) were used for all cases and plans were created in a treatment planning system using robustness criteria of 3mm (position uncertainty) and 3.5% (range uncertainty). For each patient, the CTV was uniformly grown by 3 mm to create a PTV. The optimization criteria used in the clinical plan were used as baseline to create two plans - one using robust optimization for CTV coverage and one without robust optimization for PTV coverage. A script was used to time two otherwise identical optimization runs. All plans were normalized so that the prescription was delivered to 95% of the CTV. The plan was robustly evaluated under conditions of 3.5% range uncertainty and 2mm positional uncertainty. For each nominal plan, the CTV dose heterogeneity and conformity as well as the following dose metrics were collected: CTV D99% and D98%, Normal Brain V100%, V90%, V80%, V50% as well as overall plan Dmax (to 0.03cc). For each plan, the minimum CTV D99 and maximum Brain Dmax were also collected for the robust evaluation scenarios. All collected metrics were compared between the robust CTV-based and non-robust PTV-based plans using paired t-tests with 5% significance. For the five cases investigated here, all dosimetric metrics investigated were not significantly different between the CTV-based and PTV-based plans except for the plan maximum dose (CTV-based: 104.6% Rx - 110.0% Rx, PTV-based: 105.6% Rx-110.6% Rx, p = 0.029). The optimization times were also significantly different, averaging 1532 s for CTV-based plans versus 252 s for the PTV-based plans (p = 0.004). For the plans investigated here, non-robust PTV planning approach creates plans of very similar quality to a robust CTV-based plan, while having significantly shorter planning times.