Robust optimisation for photon radiotherapy: A scoping review of models, paradigms, and reporting.

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.