SU-D-16A-04: Accuracy of Treatment Plan TCP and NTCP Values as Determined Via Treatment Course Delivery Simulations




To to determine if tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue control probability (NTCP) values computed on the treatment planning image are representative of TCP/NTCP distributions resulting from probable positioning variations encountered during external-beam radiotherapy.


We compare TCP/NTCP as typically computed on the planning PTV/OARs with distributions of those parameters computed for CTV/OARs via treatment delivery simulations which include the effect of patient organ deformations for a group of 19 prostate IMRT pseudocases. Planning objectives specified 78 Gy to PTV1=prostate CTV+5 mm margin, 66 Gy to PTV2=seminal vesicles+8 mm margin, and multiple bladder/rectum OAR objectives to achieve typical clinical OAR sparing. TCP were computed using the Poisson Model while NTCPs used the Lyman-Kutcher-Bruman model. For each patient, 1000 30-fraction virtual treatment courses were simulated with each fractional pseudo- time-oftreatment anatomy sampled from a principle component analysis patient deformation model. Dose for each virtual treatment-course was determined via deformable summation of dose from the individual fractions. CTVTCP/ OAR-NTCP values were computed for each treatment course, statistically analyzed, and compared with the planning PTV-TCP/OARNTCP values.


Mean TCP from the simulations differed by <1% from planned TCP for 18/19 patients; 1/19 differed by 1.7%. Mean bladder NTCP differed from the planned NTCP by >5% for 12/19 patients and >10% for 4/19 patients. Similarly, mean rectum NTCP differed by >5% for 12/19 patients, >10% for 4/19 patients. Both mean bladder and mean rectum NTCP differed by >5% for 10/19 patients and by >10% for 2/19 patients. For several patients, planned NTCP was less than the minimum or more than the maximum from the treatment course simulations.


Treatment course simulations yield TCP values that are similar to planned values, while OAR NTCPs differ significantly, indicating the need for probabilistic methods or PRVs for OAR risk assessment.

Presenting author receives support from Philips Medical Systems.