Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40219546›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2025

Interplay-robust optimization for treating irregularly breathing lung patients with pencil beam scanning.

Ivar Bengtsson, Anders Forsgren, Albin Fredriksson, Ye Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ivar BengtssonDepartment of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2365-3867
Anders ForsgrenDepartment of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-7815
Albin FredrikssonRaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9829-7381
Ye ZhangCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1608-4467

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe steep dose gradients obtained with pencil beam scanning allow for precise targeting of the tumor but come at the cost of high sensitivity to uncertainties. Robust optimization is commonly applied to mitigate uncertainties in density and patient setup, while its application to motion management, called 4D-robust optimization (4DRO), is typically accompanied by other techniques, including gating, breath-hold, and re-scanning. In particular, current commercial implementations of 4DRO do not model the interplay effect between the delivery time structure and the patient's motion. PURPOSE: Interplay-robust optimization (IPRO) has previously been proposed to explicitly model the interplay-affected dose during treatment planning. It has been demonstrated that IPRO can mitigate the interplay effect given the uncertainty in the patient's breathing frequency. In this study, we investigate and evaluate IPRO in the context where the motion uncertainty is extended to also include variations in breathing amplitude.

methodsThe compared optimization methods are applied and evaluated on a set of lung patients. We model the patients' motion using synthetic 4D computed tomography (s4DCT), each created by deforming a reference CT based on a motion pattern obtained with 4D magnetic resonance imaging. Each (s4DCT) contains multiple breathing cycles, partitioned into two sets for scenario generation: one for optimization and one for evaluation. Distinct patient motion scenarios are then created by randomly concatenating breathing cycles varying in period and amplitude. In addition, a method considering a single breathing cycle for generating optimization scenarios (IPRO-1C) is developed to investigate to which extent robustness can be achieved with limited information. Both IPRO and IPRO-1C were investigated with 9, 25, and 49 scenarios.

resultsFor all patient cases, IPRO and IPRO-1C increased the target coverage in terms of the near-worst-case (5th percentile) CTV D98, compared to 4DRO. After normalization of plan doses to equal target coverage, IPRO with 49 scenarios resulted in the greatest decreases in OAR dose, with near-worst-case (95th percentile) improvements averaging 4.2 %. IPRO-1C with 9 scenarios, with comparable computational demands as 4DRO, decreased OAR dose by 1.7 %.

conclusionsThe use of IPRO could lead to more efficient mitigation of the interplay effect, even when based on the information from a single breathing cycle. This can potentially decrease the need for real-time motion management techniques that prolong treatment times and decrease patient comfort.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRespirationFour-Dimensional Computed TomographyHumansMovementRadiotherapy DosageUncertaintyinterplay‐driven optimizationmotion mitigationrobustness

Identifiers

PMID40219546
PMCPMC12149720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.