Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2026
Robust optimisation for photon radiotherapy: A scoping review of models, paradigms, and reporting.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wright Brendan, Ebert Martin, Kendrick Jake, Hassan Mubashar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Robust optimisation offers an alternative to conventional margin-based photon radiotherapy planning by explicitly modelling uncertainty, but practice is variable and not standardised.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to map robust optimisation for photon external beam radiotherapy. Electronic searches of Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar (2000-2025, English language) identified planning studies that incorporated modelled uncertainties into the optimisation process and reported at least one robustness-related outcome. Data were charted on clinical context, uncertainty models, optimisation paradigms, robustness metrics and evidence for clinical implementation.
RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were included. Most investigated prostate, breast or lung cancer and used intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy in commercial or research treatment planning systems. Scenario-based worst-case (minimax) optimisation was the dominant paradigm in clinically oriented work, while chance-constrained, conditional value at-risk, distributionally robust and adaptive formulations were confined to small methodological series. Uncertainty modelling focused mainly on rigid set-up error; fewer studies incorporated respiratory motion, inter-fraction anatomical change, dose-calculation uncertainty or biological variation. Robustness was evaluated with diverse scenario-based dose-volume metrics, probabilistic coverage measures, composite robustness indices and, less often, biological endpoints. Direct clinical implementation reports were scarce.
CONCLUSION: Robust photon planning is technically feasible and generally maintains or improves target coverage and organ sparing compared with margin-based planning. However, heterogeneity in uncertainty models, optimisation configuration and robustness reporting limits comparison and synthesis. Pragmatic minimum standards are proposed to support future consensus and wider clinical adoption.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to map robust optimisation for photon external beam radiotherapy. Electronic searches of Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar (2000-2025, English language) identified planning studies that incorporated modelled uncertainties into the optimisation process and reported at least one robustness-related outcome. Data were charted on clinical context, uncertainty models, optimisation paradigms, robustness metrics and evidence for clinical implementation.
RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were included. Most investigated prostate, breast or lung cancer and used intensity-modulated radiotherapy or volumetric-modulated arc therapy in commercial or research treatment planning systems. Scenario-based worst-case (minimax) optimisation was the dominant paradigm in clinically oriented work, while chance-constrained, conditional value at-risk, distributionally robust and adaptive formulations were confined to small methodological series. Uncertainty modelling focused mainly on rigid set-up error; fewer studies incorporated respiratory motion, inter-fraction anatomical change, dose-calculation uncertainty or biological variation. Robustness was evaluated with diverse scenario-based dose-volume metrics, probabilistic coverage measures, composite robustness indices and, less often, biological endpoints. Direct clinical implementation reports were scarce.
CONCLUSION: Robust photon planning is technically feasible and generally maintains or improves target coverage and organ sparing compared with margin-based planning. However, heterogeneity in uncertainty models, optimisation configuration and robustness reporting limits comparison and synthesis. Pragmatic minimum standards are proposed to support future consensus and wider clinical adoption.