Kurz, ChristopherChristopherKurzSüss, PhilippPhilippSüssArnsmeyer, CarolinCarolinArnsmeyerHaehnle, JonasJonasHaehnleTeichert, KatrinKatrinTeichertLandry, GuillaumeGuillaumeLandryHofmaier, JanJanHofmaierExner, FlorianFlorianExnerHille, LucasLucasHilleKamp, FlorianFlorianKampThieke, ChristianChristianThiekeGanswindt, UteUteGanswindtValentini, ChiaraChiaraValentiniHölscher, TobiasTobiasHölscherTroost, EstherEstherTroostKrause, MechthildMechthildKrauseBelka, ClausClausBelkaKüfer, Karl-HeinzKarl-HeinzKüferParodi, KatiaKatiaParodiRichter, ChristianChristianRichter2022-03-052022-03-052019https://publica.fraunhofer.de/handle/publica/25586710.1016/j.zemedi.2018.10.003Proton radiotherapy (PT) requires accurate target alignment before each treatment fraction, ideally utilizing 3D in-room X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging. Typically, the optimal patient position is determined based on anatomical landmarks or implanted markers. In the presence of non-rigid anatomical changes, however, the planning scenario cannot be exactly reproduced and positioning should rather aim at finding the optimal position in terms of the actually applied dose. In this work, dose-guided patient alignment, implemented as multicriterial optimization (MCO) problem, was investigated in the scope of intensity-modulated and double-scattered PT (IMPT and DSPT) for the first time. A method for automatically determining the optimal patient position with respect to pre-defined clinical goals was implemented. Linear dose interpolation was used to access a continuous space of potential patient shifts. Fourteen head and neck (H&N) and eight prostate cancer patients with up to five repeated CTs were included. Dose interpolation accuracy was evaluated and the potential dosimetric advantages of dose-guided over bony-anatomy-based patient alignment investigated by comparison of clinically relevant target and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. Dose interpolation was found sufficiently accurate with average pass-rates of 90% and 99% for an exemplary H&N and prostate patient, respectively, using a 2% dose-difference criterion. Compared to bony-anatomy-based alignment, the main impact of automated MCO-based dose-guided positioning was a reduced dose to the serial OARs (spinal cord and brain stem) for the H&N cohort. For the prostate cohort, under-dosage of the target structures could be efficiently diminished. Limitations of dose-guided positioning were mainly found in reducing target over-dosage due to weight loss for H&N patients, which might require adaptation of the treatment plan. Since labor-intense online quality-assurance is not required for dose-guided patient positioning, it might, nevertheless, be considered an interesting alternative to full online re-planning for initially mitigating the effects of anatomical changes.en003615006519journal article