Background and purpose: In the Netherlands, 2 protocols have been standardized for PT among the 3 proton centers: a robustness evaluation (RE) to ensure adequate CTV dose and a model-based selection (MBS) approach for IMPT patient-selection. This multi-institutional study investigates (i) inter-patient and inter-center variation of target dose from the RE protocol and (ii) the robustness of the MBS protocol against treatment errors for a cohort of head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients treated in the 3 Dutch proton centers. Materials and methods: Clinical treatment plans of 100 HNC patients were evaluated. Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE) was used to perform a comprehensive robustness evaluation per plan, enabling the probabilistic evaluation of 100,000 complete fractionated treatments. PCE allowed to derive scenario distributions of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters to assess CTV dose (D_99.8%/D_0.2%, based on a prior photon plan calibration) and tumour control probabilities (TCP) as well as the evaluation of the dose to OARs and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) per center. Results: For the CTV_70.00, doses from the RE protocol were consistent with the clinical plan evaluation metrics used in the 3 centers. For the CTV_54.25, D_99.8% were consistent with the clinical plan evaluation metrics at center 1 and 2 while, for center 3, a reduction of 1 GyRBE was found on average. This difference did not impact modelled TCP at center 3. Differences between expected and nominal NTCP were below 0.3 percentage point for most patients. Conclusion: The standardization of the RE and MBS protocol lead to comparable results in terms of TCP and the NTCPs. Still, significant inter-patient and inter-center variation in dosimetric parameters remained due to clinical practice differences at each institution. The MBS approach is a robust protocol to qualify patients for PT.

Objective. In head-and-neck cancer intensity modulated proton therapy, adaptive radiotherapy is currently restricted to offline re-planning, mitigating the effect of slow changes in patient anatomies. Daily online adaptations can potentially improve dosimetry. Here, a new, fully automated online re-optimization strategy is presented. In a retrospective study, this online re-optimization approach was compared to our trigger-based offline re-planning (offline _TB re-planning) schedule, including extensive robustness analyses. Approach. The online re-optimization method employs automated multi-criterial re-optimization, using robust optimization with 1 mm setup-robustness settings (in contrast to 3 mm for offline _TB re-planning). Hard planning constraints and spot addition are used to enforce adequate target coverage, avoid prohibitively large maximum doses and minimize organ-at-risk doses. For 67 repeat-CTs from 15 patients, fraction doses of the two strategies were compared for the CTVs and organs-at-risk. Per repeat-CT, 10.000 fractions with different setup and range robustness settings were simulated using polynomial chaos expansion for fast and accurate dose calculations. Main results. For 14/67 repeat-CTs, offline _TB re-planning resulted in <50% probability of D _98% ≥ 95% of the prescribed dose (D _pres) in one or both CTVs, which never happened with online re-optimization. With offline _TB re-planning, eight repeat-CTs had zero probability of obtaining D _98% ≥ 95%D _pres for CTV ₇₀₀₀, while the minimum probability with online re-optimization was 81%. Risks of xerostomia and dysphagia grade ≥ II were reduced by 3.5 ± 1.7 and 3.9 ± 2.8 percentage point [mean ± SD] (p < 10 ⁻⁵ for both). In online re-optimization, adjustment of spot configuration followed by spot-intensity re-optimization took 3.4 min on average. Significance. The fast online re-optimization strategy always prevented substantial losses of target coverage caused by day-to-day anatomical variations, as opposed to the clinical trigger-based offline re-planning schedule. On top of this, online re-optimization could be performed with smaller setup robustness settings, contributing to improved organs-at-risk sparing.

Background and purpose: In the Netherlands, head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients are referred for proton therapy (PT) through model-based selection (MBS). However, treatment errors may compromise adequate CTV dose. Our aims are: (i) to derive probabilistic plan evaluation metrics on the CTV consistent with clinical metrics; (ii) to evaluate plan consistency between photon (VMAT) and proton (IMPT) planning in terms of CTV dose iso-effectiveness and (iii) to assess the robustness of the OAR doses and of the risk toxicities involved in the MBS. Materials and methods: Sixty HNC plans (30 IMPT/30 VMAT) were included. A robustness evaluation with 100,000 treatment scenarios per plan was performed using Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE). PCE was applied to determine scenario distributions of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters, which were compared between the 2 modalities. Finally, PCE-based probabilistic dose parameters were derived and compared to clinical PTV-based photon and voxel-wise proton evaluation metrics. Results: Probabilistic dose to near-minimum volume v = 99.8% for the CTV correlated best with clinical PTV-D_98% and VWmin-D_98%,CTV doses for VMAT and IMPT respectively. IMPT showed slightly higher nominal CTV doses, with an average increase of 0.8 GyRBE in the median of the D_99.8%,CTV distribution. Most patients qualified for IMPT through the dysphagia grade II model, for which an average NTCP gain of 10.5 percentages points (%-point) was found. For all complications, uncertainties resulted in moderate NTCP spreads lower than 3 p.p. on average for both modalities. Conclusion: Despite the differences between photon and proton planning, the comparison between PTV-based VMAT and robust IMPT is consistent. Treatment errors had a moderate impact on NTCPs, showing that the nominal plans are a good estimator to qualify patients for PT.

Objective. The Dutch proton robustness evaluation protocol prescribes the dose of the clinical target volume (CTV) to the voxel-wise minimum (VWmin) dose of 28 scenarios. This results in a consistent but conservative near-minimum CTV dose (D98%,CTV). In this study, we analyzed (i) the correlation between VWmin/voxel-wise maximum (VWmax) metrics and actually delivered dose to the CTV and organs at risk (OARs) under the impact of treatment errors, and (ii) the performance of the protocol before and after its calibration with adequate prescription-dose levels.Approach. Twenty-one neuro-oncological patients were included. Polynomial chaos expansion was applied to perform a probabilistic robustness evaluation using 100,000 complete fractionated treatments per patient. Patient-specific scenario distributions of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters for the CTV and OARs were determined and compared to clinical VWmin and VWmax dose metrics for different scenario subsets used in the robustness evaluation protocol.Main results. The inclusion of more geometrical scenarios leads to a significant increase of the conservativism of the protocol in terms of clinical VWmin and VWmax values for the CTV and OARs. The protocol could be calibrated using VWmin dose evaluation levels of 93.0%-92.3%, depending on the scenario subset selected. Despite this calibration of the protocol, robustness recipes for proton therapy showed remaining differences and an increased sensitivity to geometrical random errors compared to photon-based margin recipes.Significance. The Dutch proton robustness evaluation protocol, combined with the photon-based margin recipe, could be calibrated with a VWmin evaluation dose level of 92.5%. However, it shows limitations in predicting robustness in dose, especially for the near-maximum dose metrics to OARs. Consistent robustness recipes could improve proton treatment planning to calibrate residual differences from photon-based assumptions.

Background and purpose: Scenario-based robust optimization and evaluation are commonly used in proton therapy (PT) with pencil beam scanning (PBS) to ensure adequate dose to the clinical target volume (CTV). However, a statistically accurate assessment of the clinical application of this approach is lacking. In this study, we assess target dose in a clinical cohort of neuro-oncological patients, planned according to the DUPROTON robustness evaluation consensus, using polynomial chaos expansion (PCE). Materials and methods: A cohort of the first 27 neuro-oncological patients treated at HollandPTC was used, including realistic error distributions derived from geometrical and stopping-power prediction (SPP) errors. After validating the model, PCE-based robustness evaluations were performed by simulating 100.000 complete fractionated treatments per patient to obtain accurate statistics on clinically relevant dosimetric parameters and population-dose histograms. Results: Treatment plans that were robust according to clinical protocol and treatment plansin which robustness was sacrificed are easily identified. For robust treatment plans on average, a CTV dose of 3 percentage points (p.p.) more than prescribed was realized (range +2.7 p.p. to +3.5 p.p.) for 98% of the sampled fractionated treatments. For the entire patient cohort on average, a CTV dose of 0.1 p.p. less than prescribed was achieved (range −2.4 p.p. to +0.5 p.p.). For the 6 treatment plans in which robustness was clinically sacrificed, normalized CTV doses of 0.98, 0.94(7)¹, 0.94, 0.91, 0.90 and 0.89 were realized. The first of these was clinically borderline non-robust. Conclusion: The clinical robustness evaluation protocol is safe in terms of CTV dose as all plans that fulfilled the clinical robustness criteria were also robust in the PCE evaluation. Moreover, for plans that were non-robust in the PCE-based evaluation, CTV dose was also lower than prescribed in the clinical evaluation.