DEVELOPMENT OF A BEAM-SPECIFIC PLANNING TARGET VOLUME AND A ROBUST PLAN ANALYSIS TOOL FOR PROTON THERAPY

Proton therapy is growing increasingly popular due to its superior dose characteristics compared to conventional photon therapy. Protons travel a finite range in the patient body and stop, thereby delivering no dose beyond their range. However, because the range of a proton beam is heavily dependent on the tissue density along its beam path, uncertainties in patient setup position and inherent range calculation can degrade thedose distribution significantly. Despite these challenges that are unique to proton therapy, current management of the uncertainties during treatment planning of proton therapy has been similar to that of conventional photon therapy. The goal of this dissertation research was to develop a treatment planning method and a planevaluation method that address proton-specific issues regarding setup and range uncertainties. Treatment plan designing method adapted to proton therapy: Currently, for proton therapy using a scanning beam delivery system, setup uncertainties are largely accounted for by geometrically expanding a clinical target volume (CTV) to a planning target volume (PTV). However, a PTV alone cannot adequately account for range uncertainties coupled to misaligned patient anatomy in the beam path since it does not account for the change in tissue density. In order to remedy this problem, we proposed a beam-specific PTV (bsPTV) that accounts for the change in tissue density along the beam path due to the uncertainties. Our proposed method was successfully implemented, and its superiority over the conventional PTV was shown through a controlled experiment.. Furthermore, we have shown that the bsPTV concept can be incorporated into beam angle optimization for better target coverage and normal tissue sparing for a selected lung cancer patient. Treatment plan evaluation method adapted to proton therapy: The dose-volume histogram of the clinical target volume (CTV) or any other volumes of interest at the time of planning does not represent the most probable dosimetric outcome of a given plan as it does not include the uncertainties mentioned earlier. Currently, the PTV is used as a surrogate of the CTV’s worst case scenario for target dose estimation. However, because proton dose distributions are subject to change under these uncertainties, the validity of the PTV analysis method is questionable. In order to remedy this problem, we proposed the use of statistical parameters to quantify uncertainties on both the dose-volume histogram and dose distribution directly. The robust plan analysis tool was successfully implemented to compute both the expectation value and its standard deviation of dosimetric parameters of a treatment plan under the uncertainties. For 15 lung cancer patients, the proposed method was used to quantify the dosimetric difference between the nominal situation and its expected value under the uncertainties.

Robust effect sizes and their confidence intervals for group difference between trajectories in hierarchical linear growth model

Hierarchical linear growth model (HLGM), as a flexible and powerful analytic method, has played an increased important role in psychology, public health and medical sciences in recent decades. Mostly, researchers who conduct HLGM are interested in the treatment effect on individual trajectories, which can be indicated by the cross-level interaction effects. However, the statistical hypothesis test for the effect of cross-level interaction in HLGM only show us whether there is a significant group difference in the average rate of change, rate of acceleration or higher polynomial effect; it fails to convey information about the magnitude of the difference between the group trajectories at specific time point. Thus, reporting and interpreting effect sizes have been increased emphases in HLGM in recent years, due to the limitations and increased criticisms for statistical hypothesis testing. However, most researchers fail to report these model-implied effect sizes for group trajectories comparison and their corresponding confidence intervals in HLGM analysis, since lack of appropriate and standard functions to estimate effect sizes associated with the model-implied difference between grouping trajectories in HLGM, and also lack of computing packages in the popular statistical software to automatically calculate them. ^ The present project is the first to establish the appropriate computing functions to assess the standard difference between grouping trajectories in HLGM. We proposed the two functions to estimate effect sizes on model-based grouping trajectories difference at specific time, we also suggested the robust effect sizes to reduce the bias of estimated effect sizes. Then, we applied the proposed functions to estimate the population effect sizes (d ) and robust effect sizes (du) on the cross-level interaction in HLGM by using the three simulated datasets, and also we compared the three methods of constructing confidence intervals around d and du recommended the best one for application. At the end, we constructed 95% confidence intervals with the suitable method for the effect sizes what we obtained with the three simulated datasets. ^ The effect sizes between grouping trajectories for the three simulated longitudinal datasets indicated that even though the statistical hypothesis test shows no significant difference between grouping trajectories, effect sizes between these grouping trajectories can still be large at some time points. Therefore, effect sizes between grouping trajectories in HLGM analysis provide us additional and meaningful information to assess group effect on individual trajectories. In addition, we also compared the three methods to construct 95% confident intervals around corresponding effect sizes in this project, which handled with the uncertainty of effect sizes to population parameter. We suggested the noncentral t-distribution based method when the assumptions held, and the bootstrap bias-corrected and accelerated method when the assumptions are not met.^