TY - JOUR
T1 - An ESTRO-EPTN Delphi consensus on robustness evaluation in proton therapy
AU - Fracchiolla, Francesco
AU - Meijers, Arturs
AU - Orlandi, Ester
AU - Korevaar, Erik
AU - Whitfield, Gillian
AU - Jensen, Kenneth
AU - Hoogeman, Mischa
AU - Wijsman, Robin
AU - Jouglar, Emmanuel
AU - Weerd, Eva Van
AU - Pérez, Juan M.
AU - Rinaldi, Ilaria
AU - Garbacz-Stryszewska, Magdalena
AU - Cianchetti, Marco
AU - Feijoo, Marta Montero
AU - Molinelli, Silvia
AU - Elstrøm, Ulrik Vindelev
AU - Pica, Alessia
AU - Gosling, Andrew
AU - Koczur, Beata
AU - Dahlgren, Christina Vallhagen
AU - Alterio, Daniela
AU - Dale, Einar
AU - Farid, Goudjil
AU - Compter, Inge
AU - Doyen, Jérôme
AU - Dale, Jon Espen
AU - Färlin, Johanna
AU - Urbanek, Konrad
AU - Fjæra, Lars Fredrik
AU - Lambrecht, Maarten
AU - Ugland, Maren
AU - Tschiche, Maria
AU - Vidal, Marie
AU - Lowe, Matthew
AU - Bütof, Rebecca
AU - Gulliford, Sarah
AU - Comi, Stefania
AU - Habraken, Steven
AU - Tessonnier, Thomas
AU - Sterpin, Edmond
AU - Widesott, Lamberto
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s)
PY - 2026/1/1
Y1 - 2026/1/1
N2 - Background and purpose: Robustness evaluation (RE) is vital for proton treatment planning, but lacks international consensus or guidelines, with clinics using varied, self-developed methods focused on selected uncertainties. This ESTRO project surveys expert opinions on clinical RE methods to inform future treatment planning system (TPS) development. Materials and methods: A study within the European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN) involved 24 European proton therapy centres, with one radiation oncologist and one medical physicist per centre. The goal was to reach a consensus on transitioning from Planning Target Volume (PTV)-based planning to robustly optimized planning, including uncertainties, methods, and reporting of robustness evaluations. An internal committee drafted 39 statements, reviewed by an independent committee. Following a two-round Delphi procedure, consensus was set at a 75% agreement threshold. Results: Twenty of 24 contacted centers (83.0%) responded to both questionnaire rounds. Consensus was reached on 26 of 39 statements (66.7%), with 5 being high-priority. Strong agreement emerged regarding which uncertainties to include in RE (range, setup, intra-fraction, anatomy changes), methodologies (e.g., for moving targets, combining setup and range), and how to report RE results clinically. Disagreement was found on using the PTV for both planning and dose reporting. The results also offer important implications for TPS vendors and future software development. Conclusions: The ESTRO Delphi consensus may serve as practical guidance on points where a clear consensus was achieved. For remaining points, the development of guidelines is recommended to standardize methodologies and reporting. Furthermore, TPS vendors are encouraged to align their developments with the community's articulated requirements.
AB - Background and purpose: Robustness evaluation (RE) is vital for proton treatment planning, but lacks international consensus or guidelines, with clinics using varied, self-developed methods focused on selected uncertainties. This ESTRO project surveys expert opinions on clinical RE methods to inform future treatment planning system (TPS) development. Materials and methods: A study within the European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN) involved 24 European proton therapy centres, with one radiation oncologist and one medical physicist per centre. The goal was to reach a consensus on transitioning from Planning Target Volume (PTV)-based planning to robustly optimized planning, including uncertainties, methods, and reporting of robustness evaluations. An internal committee drafted 39 statements, reviewed by an independent committee. Following a two-round Delphi procedure, consensus was set at a 75% agreement threshold. Results: Twenty of 24 contacted centers (83.0%) responded to both questionnaire rounds. Consensus was reached on 26 of 39 statements (66.7%), with 5 being high-priority. Strong agreement emerged regarding which uncertainties to include in RE (range, setup, intra-fraction, anatomy changes), methodologies (e.g., for moving targets, combining setup and range), and how to report RE results clinically. Disagreement was found on using the PTV for both planning and dose reporting. The results also offer important implications for TPS vendors and future software development. Conclusions: The ESTRO Delphi consensus may serve as practical guidance on points where a clear consensus was achieved. For remaining points, the development of guidelines is recommended to standardize methodologies and reporting. Furthermore, TPS vendors are encouraged to align their developments with the community's articulated requirements.
KW - Consensus
KW - European particle therapy network
KW - Proton therapy
KW - Robustness evaluation
U2 - 10.1016/j.phro.2025.100900
DO - 10.1016/j.phro.2025.100900
M3 - Article
SN - 2405-6316
VL - 37
JO - Physics & Imaging in Radiation Oncology
JF - Physics & Imaging in Radiation Oncology
M1 - 100900
ER -