Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar:131:104938.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.104938. Epub 2025 Feb 12.

Development and clinical application of a probabilistic robustness evaluation tool for pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments

Affiliations

Development and clinical application of a probabilistic robustness evaluation tool for pencil beam scanning proton therapy treatments

Francesco Fracchiolla et al. Phys Med. 2025 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: to implement a probabilistic-Robustness-Evaluation (pRE) tool for proton therapy treatments and to correlate these results with the worst-case approach (wRE) implemented in commercial TPS for clinical applications.

Materials and methods: 12 skull base patients were planned with a robust multiple field optimization (MFO) approach. 10 years of machine QA were analysed to derive the uncertainties of our treatment system (beam delivery and patient positioning system). For a large cohort of patients, post-treatment imaging was acquired to determine the intra-fraction uncertainty. The pRE, considered explicitly all these uncertainties, the fractionation and range uncertainty. For each plan a wRE with different combinations of range and setup uncertainties was simulated. wRE results were then compared, in terms of target coverage and OAR dose limits, with pRE results.

Results: 43,400 dose distributions were analysed. pRE simulations lasted 18.6 h (±11.5 h). The results showed that the combination of wRE uncertainty parameters that surrogated the best pRE results with a confidence level of 95 % were (1.0 mm/3.5 %). The median OAR's dose indexes difference (D1/D1cc) between pRE and wRE was 1.90 (±1.49) GyRBE, while for target D98 and D95 it was -0.66(±0.95) and -0.67 (±0.52) GyRBE, respectively.

Conclusion: A tool able to explicitly simulate the source of treatment uncertainties and the effect of the fractionation was implemented to have a more realistic evaluation of plan robustness. This tool was used to find the best wRE parameters that surrogate the pRE results while maintaining clinically acceptable timing. These results are now used in our clinical workflow.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

LinkOut - more resources