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.

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.