While proton therapy can offer increased sparing of healthy tissue compared with X-ray therapy, it can be difficult to predict whether a benefit can be expected for an individual patient. Predictive modelling may aid in this respect. However, the predictions of these models can be affected by uncertainties in radiobiological model parameters and in planned dose. The aim of this work is to present a Markov model that incorporates these uncertainties to compare clinical outcomes for individualised proton and X-ray therapy treatments. A time-inhomogeneous fuzzy Markov model was developed which estimates the response of a patient to a given treatment plan in terms of quality adjusted life years. These are calculated using the dose-dependent probabilities of tumour control and toxicities as transition probabilities in the model. Dose-volume data representing multiple isotropic patient set-up uncertainties and range uncertainties (for proton therapy) are included to model dose delivery uncertainties. The model was retrospectively applied to an example patient as a demonstration. When uncertainty in the radiobiological model parameter was considered, the model predicted that proton therapy would result in an improved clinical outcome compared with X-ray therapy. However, when dose delivery uncertainty was included, there was no difference between the two treatments. By incorporating uncertainties in the predictive modelling calculations, the fuzzy Markov concept was found to be well suited to providing a more holistic comparison of individualised treatment outcomes for proton and X-ray therapy. This may prove to be useful in model-based patient selection strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Langendijk JA, Lambin P, De Ruysscher D et al (2013) Selection of patients for radiotherapy with protons aiming at reduction of side effects: the model-based approach. Radiother Oncol 107(3):267–273
Blanchard P, Wong AJ, Gunn GB et al (2016) Toward a model-based patient selection strategy for proton therapy: external validation of photon-derived normal tissue complication probability models in a head and neck proton therapy cohort. Radiother Oncol 121(3):381–386
Jakobi A, Bandurska-Luque A, Stützer K et al (2015) Identification of patient benefit from proton therapy for advanced head and neck cancer patients based on individual and subgroup normal tissue complication probability analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 92(5):1165–1174
Austin AM, Douglass MJ, Nguyen GT et al (2017) A radiobiological markov simulation tool for aiding decision making in proton therapy referral. Physica Med 44:72–82
Bijman RG, Breedveld S, Arts T et al (2017) Impact of model and dose uncertainty on model-based selection of oropharyngeal cancer patients for proton therapy. Acta Oncol 56(11):1444–1450
Buckley JJ (2005) Fuzzy probabilities: New approach and applications, vol 115. Springer, New York
Allen Li X, Alber M, Deasy JO et al (2012) The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning: short report of the TG-166 of the therapy physics committee of the AAPM. Med Phys 39(3):1386–1409
Lyman JT (1985) Complication probability as assessed from dose–volume histograms. Radiat Res 104(2s):S13–S19
Kutcher GJ, Burman C (1989) Calculation of complication probability factors for non-uniform normal tissue irradiation: the effective volume method. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 16(6):1623–1630
Burman C, Kutcher G, Emami B et al (1991) Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21(1):123–135
Schneider U, Sumila M, Robotka J (2011) Site-specific dose–response relationships for cancer induction from the combined Japanese A-bomb and Hodgkin cohorts for doses relevant to radiotherapy. Theor Biol Med Modell 8(1):1–21
Fagundes MA, Hug EB, Liebsch NJ et al (1995) Radiation therapy for chordomas of the base of skull and cervical spine: patterns of failure and outcome after relapse. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33(3):579–584
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality books: all cancers combined Canberra: AIHW (2017). http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books/ Accessed 3 Nov 2018
Life Tables, States, Territories and Australia, 2013–2015. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3302.0.55.001 Accessed 17 Jan 2019
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5(6):649–656
Ramaekers BL, Grutters JP, Pijls-Johannesma M et al (2013) Protons in head-and-neck cancer: bridging the gap of evidence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85(5):1282–1288
Refaie AE, Davis A, Kayan A et al (2004) A questionnaire study of the quality of life and quality of family life of individuals complaining of tinnitus pre-and postattendance at a tinnitus clinic. Int J Audiol 43(7):410–416
Tengs TO, Wallace A (2000) One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38(6):583–637
De Marzi L, Feuvret L, Boulé T et al (2015) Use of gEUD for predicting ear and pituitary gland damage following proton and photon radiation therapy. Br J Radiol 88(1048):20140413
Lee TF, Yeh SA, Chao PJ et al (2015) Normal tissue complication probability modeling for cochlea constraints to avoid causing tinnitus after head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 10(1):194
Moore RE, Kearfott RB, Cloud MJ (2009) Introduction to interval analysis, vol 110. SIAM, Philadelphia
Chung CS, Yock TI, Nelson K et al (2013) Incidence of second malignancies among patients treated with proton versus photon radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87(1):46–52
Cubillos-Mesías M, Troost EG, Lohaus F et al (2019) Including anatomical variations in robust optimization for head and neck proton therapy can reduce the need of adaptation. Radiother Oncol 131:127–134
Lowe M, Albertini F, Aitkenhead A et al (2015) Incorporating the effect of fractionation in the evaluation of proton plan robustness to setup errors. Phys Med Biol 61(1):413
The authors wish to thank Peter Rhodes for the early development of the project, Alexandre Santos for the development of the SPCIP code and Raymond Dalfsen for producing the proton and photon patient plans used in this study. The first author acknowledges the support of an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. The third author acknowledges the support of ACEMS (ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers).
Conflict of interest
Scott Penfold works part-time for a developer of a proton therapy centre. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee (Royal Adelaide Hospital Research Ethics Committee No. 150322) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Austin, A.M., Douglass, M.J.J., Nguyen, G.T. et al. Patient selection for proton therapy: a radiobiological fuzzy Markov model incorporating robust plan analysis. Phys Eng Sci Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00849-4
- Proton therapy
- Patient selection
- Markov model
- Decision aid
- Radiobiological models