001     125214
005     20240228145517.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1088/1361-6560/aa6ec5
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:28649976
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a 0031-9155
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1361-6560
|2 ISSN
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2017-01369
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 570
100 1 _ |a Wahl, Niklas
|0 P:(DE-He78)dfd5aaf608015baaaed0a15b473f1336
|b 0
|e First author
|u dkfz
245 _ _ |a Efficiency of analytical and sampling-based uncertainty propagation in intensity-modulated proton therapy.
260 _ _ |a Bristol
|c 2017
|b IOP Publ.
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1511259171_9899
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a The sensitivity of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans to uncertainties can be quantified and mitigated with robust/min-max and stochastic/probabilistic treatment analysis and optimization techniques. Those methods usually rely on sparse random, importance, or worst-case sampling. Inevitably, this imposes a trade-off between computational speed and accuracy of the uncertainty propagation. Here, we investigate analytical probabilistic modeling (APM) as an alternative for uncertainty propagation and minimization in IMPT that does not rely on scenario sampling. APM propagates probability distributions over range and setup uncertainties via a Gaussian pencil-beam approximation into moments of the probability distributions over the resulting dose in closed form. It supports arbitrary correlation models and allows for efficient incorporation of fractionation effects regarding random and systematic errors. We evaluate the trade-off between run-time and accuracy of APM uncertainty computations on three patient datasets. Results are compared against reference computations facilitating importance and random sampling. Two approximation techniques to accelerate uncertainty propagation and minimization based on probabilistic treatment plan optimization are presented. Runtimes are measured on CPU and GPU platforms, dosimetric accuracy is quantified in comparison to a sampling-based benchmark (5000 random samples). APM accurately propagates range and setup uncertainties into dose uncertainties at competitive run-times (GPU [Formula: see text] min). The resulting standard deviation (expectation value) of dose show average global [Formula: see text] pass rates between 94.2% and 99.9% (98.4% and 100.0%). All investigated importance sampling strategies provided less accuracy at higher run-times considering only a single fraction. Considering fractionation, APM uncertainty propagation and treatment plan optimization was proven to be possible at constant time complexity, while run-times of sampling-based computations are linear in the number of fractions. Using sum sampling within APM, uncertainty propagation can only be accelerated at the cost of reduced accuracy in variance calculations. For probabilistic plan optimization, we were able to approximate the necessary pre-computations within seconds, yielding treatment plans of similar quality as gained from exact uncertainty propagation. APM is suited to enhance the trade-off between speed and accuracy in uncertainty propagation and probabilistic treatment plan optimization, especially in the context of fractionation. This brings fully-fledged APM computations within reach of clinical application.
536 _ _ |a 315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315
|c POF3-315
|f POF III
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
700 1 _ |a Hennig, P.
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Wieser, H. P.
|0 P:(DE-He78)59c02b7b30ad8972cf422bb1c955956c
|b 2
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Bangert, Mark
|0 P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b
|b 3
|e Last author
|u dkfz
773 _ _ |a 10.1088/1361-6560/aa6ec5
|g Vol. 62, no. 14, p. 5790 - 5807
|0 PERI:(DE-600)1473501-5
|n 14
|p 5790 - 5807
|t Physics in medicine and biology
|v 62
|y 2017
|x 1361-6560
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:125214
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-He78)dfd5aaf608015baaaed0a15b473f1336
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-He78)59c02b7b30ad8972cf422bb1c955956c
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300
|v Imaging and radiooncology
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|b Gesundheit
914 1 _ |y 2017
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a National-Konsortium
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0430
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b PHYS MED BIOL : 2015
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0110
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1030
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Life Sciences
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
|k E040
|l Medizinische Physik in der Strahlentherapie
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21