PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 23, 2026Physics in Medicine and Biology0 citationsOpen Access

Sparse probabilistic evaluation for treatment planning: a feasibility study in IMPT head and neck patients

View Full Paper
JJJenneke de JongSHSteven HabrakenAFAlbin Fredriksson

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate the feasibility of sparse probabilistic evaluation (SPE) in IMPT treatment planning for head and neck cancer patients.
  • Included clinical plans from 20 IMPT HNC patients treated in 2024.
  • Implemented a predefined setup and range error grid using Monte-Carlo computed dose distributions.
  • Evaluated accuracy and duration of SPE with varying number of setup error points and grid settings in a calibration group of 5 patients.
  • Median mean percentile error (MPE) decreased significantly as error points increased from 7 to 33, with no further improvement at 123 points.
  • In the validation group, SPE resulted in median errors of 0.02 Gy RBE for the 10th percentile of the target dose distribution.
  • Optimal grid settings were identified with parameters Emax at 3σ and nsetup at 33.

Abstract

Objective Probabilistic evaluation improves the trade-off between target coverage and OAR sparing in IMPT but remains computationally demanding. This study proposes sparse probabilistic evaluation (SPE), a computationally efficient approach integrated into a clinical TPS. Materials and methods Clinical plans of 20 IMPT HNC patients treated in 2024 were included. SPE used a predefined setup and range error grid with Monte-Carlo computed dose distributions. Two grid settings were evaluated: the maximum error Emax (3σ or 4σ), with σ=√ ( (σᵣandomerror) ²+ (σₛystematicerror) ²), and the number of setup error points nsetup (7, 33, 123). Accuracy and duration of SPE with each grid were evaluated in the calibration group (5 patients). 1000 treatments with normally distributed random (σ=1 mm) and systematic (σ=0. 92 mm) setup and range (σ=1. 5%) errors were simulated. The dose distribution of the nearest error point in the grid was assigned to each fraction. Probability distributions derived from SPE were compared with those from a reference based on 35. 000 Monte-Carlo calculations. Agreement was quantified using the mean percentile error (MPE), the mean absolute difference across percentiles 0. 01, 0. 02, …, 1. The found optimal grid (Emax = 3σ, nsetup = 33) was applied to the validation group (15 patients). Results The median MPE in the calibration group decreased significantly as the number of error points increased from 7 (tavg = 2 minutes) to 33 (tavg = 9 minutes), with no further improvement between 33 and 123 (tavg = 27 minutes) error points. Increasing Emax from 3σ to 4σ only improved accuracy for values above the 98th percentile. Applying SPE to the validation group resulted in median errors of 0. 02 Gy RBE (range: -0. 11 to 0. 07) for the 10th percentile of the D99. 8%, CTV distribution and 0. 0 Gy RBE (range: -0. 14 to 0. 23) for the 95th percentile of the D0. 03cc, SpinalCord Core distribution. Conclusion Sparse probabilistic evaluation achieves sufficient accuracy while requiring clinically acceptable computation times, paving the way for probabilistic evaluation in clinical practice. .

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Jong et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e9b71b85696592c86eb2a5https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ae6223
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper