We present a method to implement probabilistic treatment planning of intensity-modulated radiation therapy using custom software plugins in a commercial treatment planning system. Our method avoids the definition of safety-margins by directly including the effect of geometrical uncertainties during optimization when objective functions are evaluated. Because the shape of the resulting dose distribution implicitly defines the robustness of the plan, the optimizer has much more flexibility than with a margin-based approach. We expect that this added flexibility helps to automatically strike a better balance between target coverage and dose reduction for surrounding healthy tissue, especially for cases where the planning target volume overlaps organs at risk. Prostate cancer treatment planning was chosen to develop our method, including a novel technique to include rotational uncertainties. Based on population statistics, translations and rotations are simulated independently following a marker-based IGRT correction strategy. The effects of random and systematic errors are incorporated by first blurring and then shifting the dose distribution with respect to the clinical target volume. For simplicity and efficiency, dose-shift invariance and a rigid-body approximation are assumed. Three prostate cases were replanned using our probabilistic objective functions. To compare clinical and probabilistic plans, an evaluation tool was used that explicitly incorporates geometric uncertainties using Monte-Carlo methods. The new plans achieved similar or better dose distributions than the original clinical plans in terms of expected target coverage and rectum wall sparing. Plan optimization times were only about a factor of two higher than in the original clinical system. In conclusion, we have developed a practical planning tool that enables margin-less probability-based treatment planning with acceptable planning times, achieving the first system that is feasible for clinical implementation.

No abstract

No abstract

In SIOP trials, Wilms' tumors were labeled as stage II by the presence of nonviable and/or viable tumor in the renal sinus and/or perirenal fat. The aim of this study was to determine if this approach was justified. Stage II Wilms' tumors were reviewed to establish whether staging was due to viable or nonviable tumor, and this was related to clinical outcome. One hundred sixty-nine patients were included: 40 had stage II due to the presence of nonviable tumor and 129 due to viable tumor. Postoperatively, 29 patients were undertreated: 7 with nonviable and 22 with viable stage II tumors. No undertreated patient with nonviable stage II relapsed or died (event-free survival [EFS] and overall survival [OS] 100%), whereas 3 of 22 with viable stage II relapsed, and 2 of them died (EFS 86%, OS 91%). Of 140 correctly treated patients, only 1 of 33 nonviable stage II patients relapsed and died (EFS and OS 97%); 8 of 107 patients with viable stage II relapsed (EFS 92%), and 3 of them died (OS 97%). The presence of nonviable tumor in the renal sinus and/or perirenal fat does not predict an adverse outcome in Wilms' tumors, and alone it does not warrant designation to stage II.

No abstract