A robust evaluation of 49 high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment plans including all major uncertainties.

Andrew Christopher Kennedy, Michael John James Douglass, Alexandre Manuel Caraça Santos
Author Information
  1. Andrew Christopher Kennedy: School of Physical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. ORCID
  2. Michael John James Douglass: School of Physical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
  3. Alexandre Manuel Caraça Santos: School of Physical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Uncertainties in radiotherapy cause deviation from the planned dose distribution and may result in delivering a treatment that fails to meet clinical objectives. The impact of uncertainties is unique to the patient anatomy and the needle locations in HDR prostate brachytherapy. Evaluating this impact during treatment planning is not common practice, relying on margins around the target or organs-at-risk to account for uncertainties.
PURPOSE: A robust evaluation framework for HDR prostate brachytherapy treatment plans was evaluated on 49 patient plans, measuring the range of possible dosimetric outcomes to the patient due to 14 major uncertainties.
METHODS: Patient plans were evaluated for their robustness to uncertainties by simulating probable uncertainty scenarios. Five-thousand probabilistic and 1943 worst-case scenarios per patient were simulated by changing the position and size of structures and length of dwell times from their nominal values. For each uncertainty scenario, the prostate D and maximum doses to the urethra, D , and rectum, D , were calculated.
RESULTS: The D was an average 1.16 ± 0.51% (mean ± SD) below nominal values for the probabilistic scenarios; the D metric was 2.24 ± 0.90% higher; and D was greater by 0.48 ± 0.30%. The D and D metrics were more sensitive to uncertainties than D , with a median of 79.0% and 84.9% of probabilistic scenarios passing the constraints, compared to 96.5%. The median pass-rate for scenarios that passed all three metrics simultaneously was 63.4%.
CONCLUSIONS: Assessing treatment plan robustness improves plan quality assurance, is achievable in less than 1-min, and identifies treatment plans with poor robustness, allowing re-optimization before delivery.

Keywords

References

  1. Phys Med Biol. 2021 Feb 13;66(5):055001 [PMID: 33503602]
  2. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2023 Sep;46(3):1115-1130 [PMID: 37249825]
  3. Brachytherapy. 2014 Mar-Apr;13(2):128-36 [PMID: 24041955]
  4. Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jan;110(1):199-212 [PMID: 24299968]
  5. Med Phys. 2004 Mar;31(3):633-74 [PMID: 15070264]
  6. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2016 Jun;8(3):201-7 [PMID: 27504129]
  7. Med Phys. 2022 Jun;49(6):3529-3537 [PMID: 35388456]
  8. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024 Feb;25(2):e14182 [PMID: 37837652]
  9. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2012 Jun;4(2):116-20 [PMID: 23349655]
  10. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Jan 1;49(1):61-9 [PMID: 11163498]
  11. Phys Med Biol. 2018 Nov 12;63(22):22TR02 [PMID: 30418942]
  12. Radiother Oncol. 2017 Apr;123(1):125-132 [PMID: 28284493]
  13. Radiother Oncol. 2010 Dec;97(3):495-500 [PMID: 20888055]
  14. Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:26-33 [PMID: 32987045]
  15. Phys Med Biol. 2007 May 21;52(10):2755-73 [PMID: 17473350]
  16. Med Phys. 1995 Feb;22(2):209-34 [PMID: 7565352]
  17. Radiother Oncol. 2019 Dec;141:267-274 [PMID: 31492443]
  18. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jul - Aug;9(4):200-207 [PMID: 30562614]

MeSH Term

Male
Humans
Prostate
Uncertainty
Radiotherapy Dosage
Brachytherapy
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Prostatic Neoplasms

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DtreatmentuncertaintiesplansscenariospatientprostatebrachytherapyrobustevaluationrobustnessuncertaintyprobabilisticradiotherapyimpactHDRplanningevaluated49majornominalvaluesmetricsmedianplanBACKGROUND:UncertaintiescausedeviationplanneddosedistributionmayresultdeliveringfailsmeetclinicalobjectivesuniqueanatomyneedlelocationsEvaluatingcommonpracticerelyingmarginsaroundtargetorgans-at-riskaccountPURPOSE:frameworkmeasuringrangepossibledosimetricoutcomesdue14METHODS:PatientsimulatingprobableFive-thousand1943worst-casepersimulatedchangingpositionsizestructureslengthdwelltimesscenariomaximumdosesurethrarectumcalculatedRESULTS:average116 ± 051%mean ± SDmetric224 ± 090%highergreater048 ± 030%sensitive790%849%passingconstraintscompared965%pass-ratepassedthreesimultaneously634%CONCLUSIONS:Assessingimprovesqualityassuranceachievableless1-minidentifiespoorallowingre-optimizationdeliveryhigh-dose-rateincluding

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)