% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Sheng:361665,
author = {Sheng, Yinxiangzi and Volz, Lennart and Mao, Jingfang and
Chen, Jian and Steinsberger, Timo and Wang, Weiwei and Sun,
Jiayao and Han, RongCheng and Durante, Marco and Graeff,
Christian},
title = {{C}omprehensive {R}obustness {E}valuation of {P}roton and
{C}arbon-{I}on {P}lans in {T}horacic {C}ancer {T}reatment},
journal = {International journal of particle therapy},
volume = {17},
issn = {2331-5180},
address = {[Erscheinungsort nicht ermittelbar]},
publisher = {Particle Therapy Cooperative Group},
reportid = {GSI-2025-00991},
pages = {101195},
year = {2025},
note = {This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This project
is funded by the International Postdoctoral Exchange
Fellowship Program (CN 2020016)},
abstract = {To evaluate the impact of setup errors, range uncertainty,
and respiratory motion on dose distributions for clinically
delivered pencil beam scanning proton and carbon-ion plans.A
retrospective analysis was conducted on 23 lung cancer and
trachea adenoid cystic carcinoma patients who received
treatment at our center. Plans were generated using Syngo
with planning target volume-based optimization. Dose
reconstruction was performed using TReatment planning for
Particles 4D. The plans robustness evaluation was performed
using two methods: a worst scenarios conventional evaluation
(WSCE) with 21 scenarios and a worst scenarios statistical
evaluation (WSSE) with 100 randomly sampled scenarios. On
top of the 3D evaluation considering setup error and range
error, a 4D evaluation was performed considering
motion-induced error.The overall target dose $ΔD95\%$ was
$-2.37\%$ ± $1.55\%$ (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) of
the prescribed dose (PD) and $-2.62\%$ ± $2.08\%$ for
3DWSSE and 4DWSSE, respectively. The WSCE method often
underestimated the dose by approximately $5\%$ for
$ΔD95\%.$ The induced uncertainties had limited impact on
mean doses for Lungs-iGTV and heart. However, a ΔD1cc
greater than $5\%$ of PD was observed for the esophagus and
trachea.Conventional robustness evaluation showed
significantly reduced target coverage, yet it considers
highly improbable worst-case scenarios. Comprehensive WSSE
enables the identification of critical patients without
compromising plan quality by avoiding overestimation and
compensating for unrealistic error scenarios.},
keywords = {Carbon therapy (Other) / Motion mitigation (Other) / Pencil
beam scanning (Other) / Proton therapy (Other) / Robustness
evaluation (Other)},
cin = {BIO},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Ds200)BIO-20160831OR354},
pnm = {633 - Life Sciences – Building Blocks of Life: Structure
and Function (POF4-633) / SUC-GSI-Darmstadt - Strategic
university cooperation GSI-TU Darmstadt (SUC-GSI-DA)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-633 / G:(DE-Ds200)SUC-GSI-DA},
experiment = {$EXP:(DE-Ds200)no_experiment-20200803$},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {40756950},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijpt.2025.101195},
url = {https://repository.gsi.de/record/361665},
}