Objective. The Dutch proton robustness evaluation protocol prescribes the dose of the clinical target volume (CTV) to the voxel-wise minimum (VWmin) dose of 28 scenarios. This results in a consistent but conservative near-minimum CTV dose (D98%,CTV). In this study, we analyzed (i) the correlation between VWmin/voxel-wise maximum (VWmax) metrics and actually delivered dose to the CTV and organs at risk (OARs) under the impact of treatment errors, and (ii) the performance of the protocol before and after its calibration with adequate prescription-dose levels.Approach. Twenty-one neuro-oncological patients were included. Polynomial chaos expansion was applied to perform a probabilistic robustness evaluation using 100,000 complete fractionated treatments per patient. Patient-specific scenario distributions of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters for the CTV and OARs were determined and compared to clinical VWmin and VWmax dose metrics for different scenario subsets used in the robustness evaluation protocol.Main results. The inclusion of more geometrical scenarios leads to a significant increase of the conservativism of the protocol in terms of clinical VWmin and VWmax values for the CTV and OARs. The protocol could be calibrated using VWmin dose evaluation levels of 93.0%-92.3%, depending on the scenario subset selected. Despite this calibration of the protocol, robustness recipes for proton therapy showed remaining differences and an increased sensitivity to geometrical random errors compared to photon-based margin recipes.Significance. The Dutch proton robustness evaluation protocol, combined with the photon-based margin recipe, could be calibrated with a VWmin evaluation dose level of 92.5%. However, it shows limitations in predicting robustness in dose, especially for the near-maximum dose metrics to OARs. Consistent robustness recipes could improve proton treatment planning to calibrate residual differences from photon-based assumptions.

The arterial input function (AIF) plays a crucial role in estimating quantitative perfusion properties from dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MRI. An important issue, however, is that measuring the AIF in absolute contrast-agent concentrations is challenging, due to uncertainty in relation to the measured (Formula presented.) -weighted signal, signal depletion at high concentration, and partial-volume effects. A potential solution could be to derive the AIF from separately acquired dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI data. We aim to compare the AIF determined from DCE MRI with the AIF from DSC MRI, and estimated perfusion coefficients derived from DSC data using a DCE-driven AIF with perfusion coefficients determined using a DSC-based AIF. AIFs were manually selected in branches of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) in both DCE and DSC data in each patient. In addition, a semi-automatic AIF-selection algorithm was applied to the DSC data. The amplitude and full width at half-maximum of the AIFs were compared statistically using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, applying a 0.05 significance level. Cerebral blood flow (CBF) was derived with different AIF approaches and compared further. The results showed that the AIFs extracted from DSC scans yielded highly variable peaks across arteries within the same patient. The semi-automatic DSC–AIF had significantly narrower width compared with the manual AIFs, and a significantly larger peak than the manual DSC–AIF. Additionally, the DCE-based AIF provided a more stable measurement of relative CBF and absolute CBF values estimated with DCE–AIFs that were compatible with previously reported values. In conclusion, DCE-based AIFs were reproduced significantly better across vessels, showed more realistic profiles, and delivered more stable and reasonable CBF measurements. The DCE–AIF can, therefore, be considered as an alternative AIF source for quantitative perfusion estimations in DSC MRI.

Background and purpose: Scenario-based robust optimization and evaluation are commonly used in proton therapy (PT) with pencil beam scanning (PBS) to ensure adequate dose to the clinical target volume (CTV). However, a statistically accurate assessment of the clinical application of this approach is lacking. In this study, we assess target dose in a clinical cohort of neuro-oncological patients, planned according to the DUPROTON robustness evaluation consensus, using polynomial chaos expansion (PCE). Materials and methods: A cohort of the first 27 neuro-oncological patients treated at HollandPTC was used, including realistic error distributions derived from geometrical and stopping-power prediction (SPP) errors. After validating the model, PCE-based robustness evaluations were performed by simulating 100.000 complete fractionated treatments per patient to obtain accurate statistics on clinically relevant dosimetric parameters and population-dose histograms. Results: Treatment plans that were robust according to clinical protocol and treatment plansin which robustness was sacrificed are easily identified. For robust treatment plans on average, a CTV dose of 3 percentage points (p.p.) more than prescribed was realized (range +2.7 p.p. to +3.5 p.p.) for 98% of the sampled fractionated treatments. For the entire patient cohort on average, a CTV dose of 0.1 p.p. less than prescribed was achieved (range −2.4 p.p. to +0.5 p.p.). For the 6 treatment plans in which robustness was clinically sacrificed, normalized CTV doses of 0.98, 0.94(7)¹, 0.94, 0.91, 0.90 and 0.89 were realized. The first of these was clinically borderline non-robust. Conclusion: The clinical robustness evaluation protocol is safe in terms of CTV dose as all plans that fulfilled the clinical robustness criteria were also robust in the PCE evaluation. Moreover, for plans that were non-robust in the PCE-based evaluation, CTV dose was also lower than prescribed in the clinical evaluation.