ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S4689

Physics - Optimisation, algorithms and applications for ion beam treatment planning

ESTR0 2024

*Head and neck, Brain and skull were excluded from the total to compute the percentage

This systematic review found that setup and range uncertainties were widely considered in both clinical applications and methodological papers. Geometrical uncertainties, mainly related to patient positioning in the treatment room, were frequently addressed, encompassing factors such as gantry and couch rotation precision, imaging system resolution, and reliability of immobilization devices. These uncertainties were typically represented by a shift in the isocenter, incorporating the combined effect of various sources of uncertainty. Regarding range uncertainties, the reviewed clinical papers treated them as systematic uncertainties and evaluated them at their maximum magnitude (±3%/±3.5%). Furthermore, most clinical studies did not consider the mitigation effect of fractionation and of random errors in the evaluation of plan robustness. Only a few studies considered its impact on robustness analysis and few of them are clinically applicable due to the computational efforts required. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that the actual methods provided by commercial TPSs do not explicitly account for these sources of mitigation, making the robustness evaluation a limited representation of the treatment course reality.

Conclusion:

Robustness evaluation has become an important area of research in PT. Various approaches, ranging from pragmatic to comprehensive and computationally intensive methods, have been proposed for evaluating the robustness of treatment plans. Many studies in PT incorporate robustness evaluation, and clinical centers are increasingly adopting these strategies with the help of robustness evaluation tools integrated into commercial TPS. However, there are challenges in achieving harmonization and consistent reporting of robustness evaluation.

Keywords: Robusteness evaluation, proton therapy

References:

[1] C.R.T. Stoll, S. Izadi, S. Fowler, P. Green, J. Suls, G.A. Colditz, The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews, Res. Synth. Methods. 10 (2019) 539–545

2375

Digital Poster

Application of FRED Monte Carlo code for log-based PSQA at CCB Krakow proton therapy center

Jan Gajewski 1 , Wiktor Komenda 1 , Dawid Krzempek 1 , Marta Balamut 1 , Hubert Jablonski 1 , Natalia Mojzeszek 1 , Pawel Rogalski 1 , Marzena Rydygier 1 , Angelo Schiavi 2 , Anna Spaleniak 1 , Paulina Stasica 1 , Agnieszka Wochnik 1 , Renata Kopec 1 , Antoni Rucinski 1 1 Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cyclotron Centre Bronowice, Krakow, Poland. 2 Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering, Rome, Italy