000132901 001__ 132901
000132901 005__ 20240229105038.0
000132901 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1002/mp.12775
000132901 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:29393506
000132901 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0094-2405
000132901 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1522-8541
000132901 037__ $$aDKFZ-2018-00543
000132901 041__ $$aeng
000132901 082__ $$a610
000132901 1001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)dfd5aaf608015baaaed0a15b473f1336$$aWahl, Niklas$$b0$$eFirst author$$udkfz
000132901 245__ $$aAnalytical incorporation of fractionation effects in probabilistic treatment planning for intensity-modulated proton therapy.
000132901 260__ $$aNew York, NY$$c2018
000132901 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000132901 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000132901 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1526385531_1634
000132901 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000132901 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000132901 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000132901 520__ $$aWe show that it is possible to explicitly incorporate fractionation effects into closed-form probabilistic treatment plan analysis and optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with analytical probabilistic modeling (APM). We study the impact of different fractionation schemes on the dosimetric uncertainty induced by random and systematic sources of range and setup uncertainty for treatment plans that were optimized with and without consideration of the number of treatment fractions.The APM framework is capable of handling arbitrarily correlated uncertainty models including systematic and random errors in the context of fractionation. On this basis, we construct an analytical dose variance computation pipeline that explicitly considers the number of treatment fractions for uncertainty quantitation and minimization during treatment planning. We evaluate the variance computation model in comparison to random sampling of 100 treatments for conventional and probabilistic treatment plans under different fractionation schemes (1, 5, 30 fractions) for an intracranial, a paraspinal and a prostate case. The impact of neglecting the fractionation scheme during treatment planning is investigated by applying treatment plans that were generated with probabilistic optimization for 1 fraction in a higher number of fractions and comparing them to the probabilistic plans optimized under explicit consideration of the number of fractions.APM enables the construction of an analytical variance computation model for dose uncertainty considering fractionation at negligible computational overhead. It is computationally feasible (a) to simultaneously perform a robustness analysis for all possible fraction numbers and (b) to perform a probabilistic treatment plan optimization for a specific fraction number. The incorporation of fractionation assumptions for robustness analysis exposes a dose to uncertainty trade-off, i.e., the dose in the organs at risk is increased for a reduced fraction number and/or for more robust treatment plans. By explicit consideration of fractionation effects during planning, we demonstrate that it is possible to exploit this trade-off during optimization. APM optimization considering the fraction number reduced the dose in organs at risk compared to conventional probabilistic optimization neglecting the fraction number.APM enables computationally efficient incorporation of fractionation effects in probabilistic uncertainty analysis and probabilistic treatment plan optimization. The consideration of the fractionation scheme in probabilistic treatment planning reveals the trade-off between number of fractions, nominal dose, and treatment plan robustness.
000132901 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$a315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)$$cPOF3-315$$fPOF III$$x0
000132901 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000132901 7001_ $$aHennig, Philipp$$b1
000132901 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)59c02b7b30ad8972cf422bb1c955956c$$aWieser, Hans-Peter$$b2$$udkfz
000132901 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b$$aBangert, Mark$$b3$$eLast author$$udkfz
000132901 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1466421-5$$a10.1002/mp.12775$$gVol. 45, no. 4, p. 1317 - 1328$$n4$$p1317 - 1328$$tMedical physics$$v45$$x0094-2405$$y2018
000132901 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:132901$$pVDB
000132901 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)dfd5aaf608015baaaed0a15b473f1336$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b0$$kDKFZ
000132901 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)59c02b7b30ad8972cf422bb1c955956c$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b2$$kDKFZ
000132901 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b3$$kDKFZ
000132901 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vImaging and radiooncology$$x0
000132901 9141_ $$y2018
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bMED PHYS : 2015
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences
000132901 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000132901 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331$$kE040$$lMedizinische Physik in der Strahlentherapie$$x0
000132901 980__ $$ajournal
000132901 980__ $$aVDB
000132901 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
000132901 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED