Purpose: We report on the development of the open-source cross-platform radiation treatment planning toolkit matRad and its comparison against validated treatment planning systems. The toolkit enables three-dimensional intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for photons, scanned protons and scanned carbon ions. Methods: matRad is entirely written in Matlab and is freely available online. It re-implements wellestablished algorithms employing a modular and sequential software design to model the entire treatment planning workflow. It comprises core functionalities to import DICOM data, to calculate and optimize dose as well as a graphical user interface for visualization. matRad dose calculation algorithms (for carbon ions this also includes the computation of the relative biological effect) are compared against dose calculation results originating from clinically approved treatment planning systems. Results: We observe three-dimensional c-analysis pass rates ≥ 99.67% for all three radiation modalities utilizing a distance to agreement of 2 mm and a dose difference criterion of 2%. The computational efficiency of matRad is evaluated in a treatment planning study considering three different treatment scenarios for every radiation modality. For photons, we measure total run times of 145 s-1260 s for dose calculation and fluence optimization combined considering 4-72 beam orientations and 2608-13597 beamlets. For charged particles, we measure total run times of 63 s-993 s for dose calculation and fluence optimization combined considering 9963-45574 pencil beams. Using a CT and dose grid resolution of 0.3 cm 3 requires a memory consumption of 1.59 GB-9.07 GB and 0.29 GB-17.94 GB for photons and charged particles, respectively. Conclusion: The dosimetric accuracy, computational performance and open-source character of matRad encourages a future application of matRad for both educational and research purposes.

The sensitivity of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans to uncertainties can be quantified and mitigated with robust/min-max and stochastic/probabilistic treatment analysis and optimization techniques. Those methods usually rely on sparse random, importance, or worst-case sampling. Inevitably, this imposes a trade-off between computational speed and accuracy of the uncertainty propagation. Here, we investigate analytical probabilistic modeling (APM) as an alternative for uncertainty propagation and minimization in IMPT that does not rely on scenario sampling. APM propagates probability distributions over range and setup uncertainties via a Gaussian pencil-beam approximation into moments of the probability distributions over the resulting dose in closed form. It supports arbitrary correlation models and allows for efficient incorporation of fractionation effects regarding random and systematic errors. We evaluate the trade-off between run-time and accuracy of APM uncertainty computations on three patient datasets. Results are compared against reference computations facilitating importance and random sampling. Two approximation techniques to accelerate uncertainty propagation and minimization based on probabilistic treatment plan optimization are presented. Runtimes are measured on CPU and GPU platforms, dosimetric accuracy is quantified in comparison to a sampling-based benchmark (5000 random samples). APM accurately propagates range and setup uncertainties into dose uncertainties at competitive run-times (GPU [Formula: see text] min). The resulting standard deviation (expectation value) of dose show average global [Formula: see text] pass rates between 94.2% and 99.9% (98.4% and 100.0%). All investigated importance sampling strategies provided less accuracy at higher run-times considering only a single fraction. Considering fractionation, APM uncertainty propagation and treatment plan optimization was proven to be possible at constant time complexity, while run-times of sampling-based computations are linear in the number of fractions. Using sum sampling within APM, uncertainty propagation can only be accelerated at the cost of reduced accuracy in variance calculations. For probabilistic plan optimization, we were able to approximate the necessary pre-computations within seconds, yielding treatment plans of similar quality as gained from exact uncertainty propagation. APM is suited to enhance the trade-off between speed and accuracy in uncertainty propagation and probabilistic treatment plan optimization, especially in the context of fractionation. This brings fully-fledged APM computations within reach of clinical application.

No abstract