Anatomically robust proton therapy using multiple planning computed tomography scans for locally advanced prostate cancer

References

• Chuong MD, Hartsell W, Larson G, et al. Minimal toxicity after proton beam therapy for prostate and pelvic nodal irradiation: results from the proton collaborative group REG001-09 trial minimal toxicity after proton beam therapy for prostate and pelvic nodal irradiation: results from the proton. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(3):368–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Zhang X, Yang P, et al. Intensity-modulated proton therapy and osteoradionecrosis in oropharyngeal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2017;123(3):401–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scorsetti M, Cozzi L, Navarria P, et al. Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15(1):12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thörnqvist S, Muren LP, Bentzen L, et al. Degradation of target coverage due to inter-fraction motion during intensity-modulated proton therapy of prostate and elective targets. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(3):521–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller BS, Duma MN, Kampfer S, et al. Impact of interfractional changes in head and neck cancer patients on the delivered dose in intensity modulated radiotherapy with protons and photons. Phys Med. 2015;31(3):266–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, et al. Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2012;39(2):1079–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuschke M, Kaiser A, Abu Jawad J, et al. Multi-scenario based robust intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans can account for set-up errors more effectively in terms of normal tissue sparing than planning target volume (PTV) based intensity-modulated photon plans in the head and neck regi. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8(1):145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albertini F, Matter M, Nenoff L, et al. Online daily adaptive proton therapy. Br J Radiol. 2020;93(1107):20190594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagt TZ, Breedveld S, van Haveren R, et al. Plan-library supported automated replanning for online-adaptive intensity-modulated proton therapy of cervical cancer. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(10):1440–1445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nenoff L, Matter M, Hedlund Lindmar J, et al. Daily adaptive proton therapy–the key to innovative planning approaches for paranasal cancer treatments. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(10):1423–1428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurz C, Süss P, Arnsmeyer C, et al. Dose-guided patient positioning in proton radiotherapy using multicriteria-optimization. Z Med Phys. 2019;29(3):216–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busch K, Muren LP, Thörnqvist S, et al. On-line dose-guidance to account for inter-fractional motion during proton therapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;9:7–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang X, Li H, Zhu XR, et al. Multiple-CT optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy – is it possible to eliminate adaptive planning? Radiother Oncol. 2018;128(1):167–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Water S, Albertini F, Weber DC, et al. Anatomical robust optimization to account for nasal cavity filling variation during intensity-modulated proton therapy: a comparison with conventional and adaptive planning strategies. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(2):025020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cubillos-Mesías M, Troost EGC, Lohaus F, et al. Including anatomical variations in robust optimization for head and neck proton therapy can reduce the need of adaptation. Radiother Oncol. 2019;131:127–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hysing LB, Söhn M, Muren LP, et al. A coverage probability based method to estimate patient-specific small bowel planning volumes for use in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100(3):407–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muren LP, Smaaland R, Dahl O. Organ motion, set-up variation and treatment margins in radical radiotherapy of urinary bladder cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69(3):291–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hysing LB, Kvinnsland Y, Lord H, et al. Planning organ at risk volume margins for organ motion of the intestine. Radiother Oncol. 2006;80(3):349–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thörnqvist S, Bentzen L, Petersen JBB, et al. Plan robustness of simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of prostate and lymph nodes for different image-guidance and delivery techniques. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(6):926–934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burman C, Kutcher GJ, Emami B, et al. Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):123–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S123–S129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavroidis P, Pearlstein KA, Dooley J, et al. Fitting NTCP models to bladder doses and acute urinary symptoms during post-prostatectomy radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen J, Liang X, Casares-Magaz O, et al. Multivariate normal tissue complication probability models for rectal and bladder morbidity in prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2020;153:279–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Søndergaard J, Holmberg M, Jakobsen AR, et al. A comparison of morbidity following conformal versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for urinary bladder cancer. Acta Oncol. 2014;53(10):1321–1328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budiarto E, Keijzer M, Storchi PR, et al. A population-based model to describe geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy: applied to prostate cases. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(4):1045–1061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furmanova K, Muren LP, Casares-Magaz O, et al. PREVIS: predictive visual analytics of anatomical variability for radiotherapy decision support. IEEE Pacific Vis Symp. 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Thörnqvist S, Hysing LB, Zolnay AG, et al. Treatment simulations with a statistical deformable motion model to evaluate margins for multiple targets in radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2013;109(3):344–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trofimov A, Nguyen PL, Efstathiou JA, et al. Interfractional variations in the setup of pelvic bony anatomy and soft tissue, and their implications on the delivery of proton therapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(3):928–937.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widesott L, Pierelli A, Fiorino C, et al. Helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated proton therapy for whole pelvis irradiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients: dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability, and generalized equivalent uniform dose analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(5):1589–1600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rana S, Cheng C, Zheng Y, et al. Proton therapy vs. VMAT for prostate cancer: a treatment planning study. Int J Part Ther. 2014;1(1):22–33.
   Google Scholar
• Busch K, G, Andersen A, Casares-Magaz O, et al. Evaluating the influence of organ motion during photon vs. proton therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer using biological models. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(6):839–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen J, Flampouri S, Bryant C, et al. Cross-modality applicability of rectal normal tissue complication probability models from photon- to proton-based radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2020;142:253–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen J, Petersen JBB, Stokkevåg CH, et al. Biological dose and complication probabilities for the rectum and bladder based on linear energy transfer distributions in spot scanning proton therapy of prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(11):1413–1419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen AG, Casares-Magaz O, Muren LP, et al. A method for evaluation of proton plan robustness towards inter-fractional motion applied to pelvic lymph node irradiation. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1643–1650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger T, Petersen JBB, Lindegaard JC, et al. Impact of bowel gas and body outline variations on total accumulated dose with intensity-modulated proton therapy in locally advanced cervical cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(11):1472–1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao W, Schweitzer N, Biswal N, et al. Impact of bowel and rectum air on target dose with robustly optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy plans. Acta Oncol. 2020;59(10):1186–1192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar