skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Quantification of Dosimetric Impact of Implementation of On-Board Imaging (OBI) for IMRT Treatment of Head-And-Neck Malignancies

Abstract

Implementation of daily kilovoltage imaging for setup verification improves the reproducibility of treatment by eliminating small random setup errors. We evaluate the dosimetric consequences of such shifts, not yet evaluated, in a group of head-and-neck cancer patients (ENT) treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at Emory University. Twelve patients with ENT malignancies were analyzed. On-Board Imaging (OBI) was used in at least 70% of each patient's treatment sessions. An isodose distribution was generated for each fraction, with the isocenter shifted to its calculated location prior to OBI repositioning. These plans were summed and then compared to the simulation plan for coverage of target structures. For these 12 patients, there were a total of 18 planning target volumes (PTV). The mean (range) percent reduction in minimum dose was 12.1% (-1.0 to 43.3). For 10 right necks and 9 left necks treated, the mean percent reduction in minimum dose was 11.8% (-0.6 to 39.7) and 13.3% (-3.6 to 31.2), respectively. The mean reduction in mean dose to the PTV was 1.3% (0 to 5.1). The mean reduction in mean dose to the right and left necks was 1.0% (0.2 to 3.9) and 1.13% (0.4 to 3.4), respectively. From this analysis, wemore » conclude that the shifts made were small and random, with essentially no change in mean dose delivered to target structures. There is, however, significant improvement in the minimum dose delivered. Underdosing even a small portion of the tumor potentially sacrifices the probability of local control; correcting these setup errors seems desirable.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ; ;  [2]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (United States), E-mail: joshua@radonc.emory.org
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21045985
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 32; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2007.02.008; PII: S0958-3947(07)00052-0; Copyright (c) 2007 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CARCINOMAS; HEAD; IMAGES; NECK; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

Lawson, Joshua D., Elder, Eric, Fox, Tim, Davis, Lawrence, and Crocker, Ian. Quantification of Dosimetric Impact of Implementation of On-Board Imaging (OBI) for IMRT Treatment of Head-And-Neck Malignancies. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2007.02.008.
Lawson, Joshua D., Elder, Eric, Fox, Tim, Davis, Lawrence, & Crocker, Ian. Quantification of Dosimetric Impact of Implementation of On-Board Imaging (OBI) for IMRT Treatment of Head-And-Neck Malignancies. United States. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2007.02.008.
Lawson, Joshua D., Elder, Eric, Fox, Tim, Davis, Lawrence, and Crocker, Ian. Mon . "Quantification of Dosimetric Impact of Implementation of On-Board Imaging (OBI) for IMRT Treatment of Head-And-Neck Malignancies". United States. doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2007.02.008.
@article{osti_21045985,
title = {Quantification of Dosimetric Impact of Implementation of On-Board Imaging (OBI) for IMRT Treatment of Head-And-Neck Malignancies},
author = {Lawson, Joshua D. and Elder, Eric and Fox, Tim and Davis, Lawrence and Crocker, Ian},
abstractNote = {Implementation of daily kilovoltage imaging for setup verification improves the reproducibility of treatment by eliminating small random setup errors. We evaluate the dosimetric consequences of such shifts, not yet evaluated, in a group of head-and-neck cancer patients (ENT) treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at Emory University. Twelve patients with ENT malignancies were analyzed. On-Board Imaging (OBI) was used in at least 70% of each patient's treatment sessions. An isodose distribution was generated for each fraction, with the isocenter shifted to its calculated location prior to OBI repositioning. These plans were summed and then compared to the simulation plan for coverage of target structures. For these 12 patients, there were a total of 18 planning target volumes (PTV). The mean (range) percent reduction in minimum dose was 12.1% (-1.0 to 43.3). For 10 right necks and 9 left necks treated, the mean percent reduction in minimum dose was 11.8% (-0.6 to 39.7) and 13.3% (-3.6 to 31.2), respectively. The mean reduction in mean dose to the PTV was 1.3% (0 to 5.1). The mean reduction in mean dose to the right and left necks was 1.0% (0.2 to 3.9) and 1.13% (0.4 to 3.4), respectively. From this analysis, we conclude that the shifts made were small and random, with essentially no change in mean dose delivered to target structures. There is, however, significant improvement in the minimum dose delivered. Underdosing even a small portion of the tumor potentially sacrifices the probability of local control; correcting these setup errors seems desirable.},
doi = {10.1016/j.meddos.2007.02.008},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 4,
volume = 32,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}
  • Kilovoltage imaging systems on linear accelerators are used for patient localization in many clinics. The purpose of this work is to assess on-board imaging (OBI) detection of systematic setup errors and in particular, the dosimetric consequences of undetected head roll in head-and-neck intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans when using these systems. The system used in this study was the Trilogy linear accelerator and associated software (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Accuracy of OBI localization was evaluated using an anthropomorphic head phantom. The head phantom is rigidly attached to a specially designed positioning device with 5 deg. of freedom,more » 3 translational and 2 rotational in the axial and coronal planes. Simulated setup errors were 3 deg. and 5 deg. rotations in the axial plane and displacements of 5 mm in the left-right, anterior-posterior, and superior-inferior directions. The coordinates set by the positioning device were compared with the coordinates obtained as measured by using the image matching tools of paired 2-dimensional (2D) orthogonal image matching, and 3D cone-beam computed tomography (CT) volume matching. In addition, 6 physician-approved IMRT plans of nasopharynx and tonsil carcinoma were recalculated to evaluate the impact of undetected 3 deg. and 5 deg. head roll. Application of cone-beam CT (CBCT) for patient localization was superior to 2D matching techniques for detecting rotational setup errors. The use of CBCT allowed the determination of translational errors to within 0.5 mm, whereas kV planar was within 1 to 2 mm. Head roll in the axial plane was not easily detected with orthogonal image sets. Compared to the IMRT plans with no head roll, dose-volume histogram analysis demonstrated an average increase in the maximal spinal cord dose of 3.1% and 6.4% for 3 deg. and 5 deg. angles of rotation, respectively. Dose to the contralateral parotid was unchanged with 3 deg. roll and increased by 2.7% with 5 deg. roll. The results of this study show that volumetric setup verification using CBCT can improve bony anatomy setup detection to millimeter accuracy, and is a reliable method to detect head roll. However, the magnitude of possible dose errors due to undetected head roll suggests that CBCT does not need to be performed on a daily basis but rather weekly or bi-weekly to ensure fidelity of the head position with the immobilization system.« less
  • Purpose: To assess residual setup errors during head and neck radiation therapy and the resulting consequences for the delivered dose for various patient alignment procedures. Methods and Materials: Megavoltage cone beam computed tomography (MVCBCT) scans from 11 head and neck patients who underwent intensity modulated radiation therapy were used to assess setup errors. Each MVCBCT scan was registered to its reference planning kVCT, with seven different alignment procedures: automatic alignment and manual registration to 6 separate bony landmarks (sphenoid, left/right maxillary sinuses, mandible, cervical 1 [C1]-C2, and C7-thoracic 1 [T1] vertebrae). Shifts in the different alignments were compared with eachmore » other to determine whether there were any statistically significant differences. Then, the dose distribution was recalculated on 3 MVCBCT images per patient for every alignment procedure. The resulting dose-volume histograms for targets and organs at risk (OARs) were compared to those from the planning kVCTs. Results: The registration procedures produced statistically significant global differences in patient alignment and actual dose distribution, calling for a need for standardization of patient positioning. Vertically, the automatic, sphenoid, and maxillary sinuses alignments mainly generated posterior shifts and resulted in mean increases in maximal dose to OARs of >3% of the planned dose. The suggested choice of C1-C2 as a reference landmark appears valid, combining both OAR sparing and target coverage. Assuming this choice, relevant margins to apply around volumes of interest at the time of planning to take into account for the relative mobility of other regions are discussed. Conclusions: Use of different alignment procedures for treating head and neck patients produced variations in patient setup and dose distribution. With concern for standardizing practice, C1-C2 reference alignment with relevant margins around planning volumes seems to be a valid option.« less
  • Purpose: The presence of high density dental amalgam in patient CT image data sets causes dose calculation errors for head and neck (HN) treatment planning. This study assesses and compares dosimetric variations in IMRT and VMAT treatment plans due to dental artifacts. Methods: Sixteen HN patients with similar treatment sites (oropharynx), tumor volume and extensive dental artifacts were divided into two groups: IMRT (n=8, 6 to 9 beams) and VMAT (n=8, 2 arcs with 352° rotation). All cases were planned with the Pinnacle 9.2 treatment planning software using the collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm and a range of prescription dosemore » from 60 to 72Gy. Two different treatment plans were produced, each based on one of two image sets: (a)uncorrected; (b)dental artifacts density overridden (set to 1.0g/cm{sup 3}). Differences between the two treatment plans for each of the IMRT and VMAT techniques were quantified by the following dosimetric parameters: maximum point dose, maximum spinal cord and brainstem dose, mean left and right parotid dose, and PTV coverage (V95%Rx). Average differences generated for these dosimetric parameters were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. Results: The average absolute dose differences (plan a minus plan b) for the VMAT and IMRT techniques, respectively, caused by dental artifacts were: 2.2±3.3cGy vs. 37.6±57.5cGy (maximum point dose, P=0.15); 1.2±0.9cGy vs. 7.9±6.7cGy (maximum spinal cord dose, P=0.026); 2.2±2.4cGy vs. 12.1±13.0cGy (maximum brainstem dose, P=0.077); 0.9±1.1cGy vs. 4.1±3.5cGy (mean left parotid dose, P=0.038); 0.9±0.8cGy vs. 7.8±11.9cGy (mean right parotid dose, P=0.136); 0.021%±0.014% vs. 0.803%±1.44% (PTV coverage, P=0.17). Conclusion: For the HN plans studied, dental artifacts demonstrated a greater dose calculation error for IMRT plans compared to VMAT plans. Rotational arcs appear on the average to compensate dose calculation errors induced by dental artifacts. Thus, compared to VMAT, density overrides for dental artifacts are more important when planning IMRT of HN.« less
  • The rapid development and clinical implementation of external beam radiation treatment technologies continues. The existence of various commercially available technologies for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has stimulated interest in exploring the differential potential advantage one may have compared with another. Two such technologies, Hi-Art Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and conventional medical linear accelerator-based IMRT (LIMRT) have been shown to be particularly suitable for the treatment of head and neck cancers. In this study, 23 patients who were diagnosed with stages 3 or 4 head and neck cancers, without evidence of distance metastatic disease, were treated in our clinic. Treatment plans weremore » developed for all patients simultaneously on the HT planning station and on the Pinnacle treatment planning system for step-and-shoot IMRT. Patients were treated only on the HT unit, with the LIMRT plan serving as a backup in case the HT system might not be available. All plans were approved for clinical use by a physician. The prescription was that patients receive at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), which is 66 Gy at 2.2 Gy per fraction. Several dosimetric parameters were computed: PTV dose coverage; PTV volume conformity index; the normalized total dose (NTD), where doses were converted to 2 Gy per fraction to organs at risk (OAR); and PTV dose homogeneity. Both planning systems satisfied our clinic's PTV prescription requirements. The results suggest that HT plans had, in general, slightly better dosimetric characteristics, especially regarding PTV dose homogeneity and normal tissue sparing. However, for both techniques, doses to OAR were well below the currently accepted normal tissue tolerances. Consequently, factors other than the dosimetric parameters studied here may have to be considered when making a choice between IMRT techniques.« less
  • Purpose: To determine differences in clinical outcomes using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or a standard low neck field (LNF) to treat low neck. Methods and Materials: This is a retrospective, single-institution study. Ninety-one patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were treated with curative intent. According to physician preference, some patients were treated with LNF (Planning Target Volume 3) field using a single anterior photon field matched to the IMRT field. Field junctions were not feathered. The endpoints were time to failure and use of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (as a surrogate of laryngeal edema causingmore » aspiration), and analysis was done with {chi}{sup 2} and log-rank tests. Results: Median follow-up was 21 months (range, 2-89 months). Median age was 60 years. Thirty-seven patients (41%) were treated with LNF, 84% were Stage III or IV. A PEG tube was required in 30%, as opposed to 33% without the use of LNF. Node 2 or 3 neck disease was treated more commonly without LNF (38% vs. 24%, p = 0.009). Failures occurred in 12 patients (13%). Only 1 patient treated with LNF failed regionally, 4.5 cm above the match line. The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 87% and 79% with LNF and without LNF, respectively (p = 0.2), and the 3-year LR failure rate was 4% and 21%, respectively (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Using LNF to treat the low neck did not increase the risk of regional failure 'in early T and early N diseases' or decrease PEG tube requirements.« less