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

Title: Fully Automated Simultaneous Integrated Boosted-Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning Is Feasible for Head-and-Neck Cancer: A Prospective Clinical Study

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively determine whether overlap volume histogram (OVH)-driven, automated simultaneous integrated boosted (SIB)-intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning for head-and-neck cancer can be implemented in clinics. Methods and Materials: A prospective study was designed to compare fully automated plans (APs) created by an OVH-driven, automated planning application with clinical plans (CPs) created by dosimetrists in a 3-dose-level (70 Gy, 63 Gy, and 58.1 Gy), head-and-neck SIB-IMRT planning. Because primary organ sparing (cord, brain, brainstem, mandible, and optic nerve/chiasm) always received the highest priority in clinical planning, the study aimed to show the noninferiority of APs with respect to PTV coverage and secondary organ sparing (parotid, brachial plexus, esophagus, larynx, inner ear, and oral mucosa). The sample size was determined a priori by a superiority hypothesis test that had 85% power to detect a 4% dose decrease in secondary organ sparing with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression model was used for statistical comparison. Results: Forty consecutive patients were accrued from July to December 2010. GEE analysis indicated that in APs, overall average dose to the secondary organs was reduced by 1.16 (95% CI = 0.09-2.33) with P=.04, overall average PTV coverage was increasedmore » by 0.26% (95% CI = 0.06-0.47) with P=.02 and overall average dose to the primary organs was reduced by 1.14 Gy (95% CI = 0.45-1.8) with P=.004. A physician determined that all APs could be delivered to patients, and APs were clinically superior in 27 of 40 cases. Conclusions: The application can be implemented in clinics as a fast, reliable, and consistent way of generating plans that need only minor adjustments to meet specific clinical needs.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Department of Oncology Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (United States)
  4. Autodesk Research, Toronto, ON (Canada)
  5. Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC (United States)
  6. Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22149693
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 84; Journal Issue: 5; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2012 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; AUDITORY ORGANS; BRAIN; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; ESOPHAGUS; HEAD; JAW; LARYNX; MUCOUS MEMBRANES; NECK; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Wu Binbin, E-mail: binbin.wu@gunet.georgetown.edu, Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, McNutt, Todd, Zahurak, Marianna, Simari, Patricio, Pang, Dalong, Taylor, Russell, and Sanguineti, Giuseppe. Fully Automated Simultaneous Integrated Boosted-Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning Is Feasible for Head-and-Neck Cancer: A Prospective Clinical Study. United States: N. p., 2012. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2012.06.047.
Wu Binbin, E-mail: binbin.wu@gunet.georgetown.edu, Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, McNutt, Todd, Zahurak, Marianna, Simari, Patricio, Pang, Dalong, Taylor, Russell, & Sanguineti, Giuseppe. Fully Automated Simultaneous Integrated Boosted-Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning Is Feasible for Head-and-Neck Cancer: A Prospective Clinical Study. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2012.06.047.
Wu Binbin, E-mail: binbin.wu@gunet.georgetown.edu, Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, McNutt, Todd, Zahurak, Marianna, Simari, Patricio, Pang, Dalong, Taylor, Russell, and Sanguineti, Giuseppe. Sat . "Fully Automated Simultaneous Integrated Boosted-Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning Is Feasible for Head-and-Neck Cancer: A Prospective Clinical Study". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2012.06.047.
@article{osti_22149693,
title = {Fully Automated Simultaneous Integrated Boosted-Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning Is Feasible for Head-and-Neck Cancer: A Prospective Clinical Study},
author = {Wu Binbin, E-mail: binbin.wu@gunet.georgetown.edu and Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC and McNutt, Todd and Zahurak, Marianna and Simari, Patricio and Pang, Dalong and Taylor, Russell and Sanguineti, Giuseppe},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To prospectively determine whether overlap volume histogram (OVH)-driven, automated simultaneous integrated boosted (SIB)-intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning for head-and-neck cancer can be implemented in clinics. Methods and Materials: A prospective study was designed to compare fully automated plans (APs) created by an OVH-driven, automated planning application with clinical plans (CPs) created by dosimetrists in a 3-dose-level (70 Gy, 63 Gy, and 58.1 Gy), head-and-neck SIB-IMRT planning. Because primary organ sparing (cord, brain, brainstem, mandible, and optic nerve/chiasm) always received the highest priority in clinical planning, the study aimed to show the noninferiority of APs with respect to PTV coverage and secondary organ sparing (parotid, brachial plexus, esophagus, larynx, inner ear, and oral mucosa). The sample size was determined a priori by a superiority hypothesis test that had 85% power to detect a 4% dose decrease in secondary organ sparing with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression model was used for statistical comparison. Results: Forty consecutive patients were accrued from July to December 2010. GEE analysis indicated that in APs, overall average dose to the secondary organs was reduced by 1.16 (95% CI = 0.09-2.33) with P=.04, overall average PTV coverage was increased by 0.26% (95% CI = 0.06-0.47) with P=.02 and overall average dose to the primary organs was reduced by 1.14 Gy (95% CI = 0.45-1.8) with P=.004. A physician determined that all APs could be delivered to patients, and APs were clinically superior in 27 of 40 cases. Conclusions: The application can be implemented in clinics as a fast, reliable, and consistent way of generating plans that need only minor adjustments to meet specific clinical needs.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2012.06.047},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 5,
volume = 84,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Dec 01 00:00:00 EST 2012},
month = {Sat Dec 01 00:00:00 EST 2012}
}
  • The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate dose to skin between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment techniques for target sites in the head and neck, pelvis, and brain and (2) to determine if the treatment dose and fractionation regimen affect the skin dose between traditional sequential boost and integrated boost regimens for patients with head and neck cancer. A total of 19 patients and 48 plans were evaluated. The Eclipse (v11) treatment planning system was used to plan therapy in 9 patients with head and neck cancer, 5 patients with prostate cancer, andmore » 5 patients with brain cancer with VMAT and static-field IMRT. The mean skin dose and the maximum dose to a contiguous volume of 2 cm{sup 3} for head and neck plans and brain plans and a contiguous volume of 5 cm{sup 3} for pelvis plans were compared for each treatment technique. Of the 9 patients with head and neck cancer, 3 underwent an integrated boost regimen. One integrated boost plan was replanned with IMRT and VMAT using a traditional boost regimen. For target sites located in the head and neck, VMAT reduced the mean dose and contiguous hot spot most noticeably in the shoulder region by 5.6% and 5.4%, respectively. When using an integrated boost regimen, the contiguous hot spot skin dose in the shoulder was larger on average than a traditional boost pattern by 26.5% and the mean skin dose was larger by 1.7%. VMAT techniques largely decrease the contiguous hot spot in the skin in the pelvis by an average of 36% compared with IMRT. For the same target coverage, VMAT can reduce the skin dose in all the regions of the body, but more noticeably in the shoulders in patients with head and neck and pelvis cancer. We also found that using integrated boost regimens in patients with head and neck cancer leads to higher shoulder skin doses compared with traditional boost regimens.« less
  • Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate prospectively the weekly volume changes in the target volumes and organs at risk and the resulting dosimetric changes during induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (C-IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer patients. Methods and Materials: Patients receiving C-IMRT for head-and-neck cancer had repeat CT scans at weeks 2, 3, 4, and 5 during radiotherapy. The volume changes of clinical target volume 1 (CTV1) and CTV2 and the resulting dosimetric changes to planning target volume 1 (PTV1) and PTV2 and the organs at risk were measured. Results: The most significant volumemore » differences were seen at week 2 for CTV1 and CTV2. The reductions in the volumes of CTV1 and CTV2 at week 2 were 3.2% and 10%, respectively (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). The volume changes resulted in a significant reduction in the minimum dose to PTV1 and PTV2 (2 Gy, p = 0.002, and 3.9 Gy, p = 0.03, respectively) and an increased dose range across PTV1 and PTV2 (2.5 Gy, p < 0.001, and 5.1 Gy, p = 0.008, respectively). There was a 15% reduction in the parotid volumes by week 2 (p < 0.001) and 31% by week 4 (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the mean dose to the ipsilateral parotid only at week 4 (2.7 Gy, p = 0.006). The parotid glands shifted medially by an average of 2.3 mm (p < 0.001) by week 4. Conclusion: The most significant volumetric changes and dosimetric alterations in the tumor volumes and organs at risk during a course of C-IMRT occur by week 2 of radiotherapy. Further adaptive radiotherapy with replanning, if appropriate, is recommended.« less
  • Purpose: Lack of plan robustness may contribute to local failure in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to treat head and neck (H&N) cancer. Thus we compared plan robustness of VMAT with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 H&N cancer patients. For each plan, six new perturbed dose distributions were computed — one each for ± 3mm setup deviations along the S-I, A-P and L-R directions. We used three robustness quantification tools: (1) worst-case analysis (WCA); (2) dose-volume histograms (DVHs) band (DVHB); and (3) root-mean-square-dose deviation (RMSD) volume histogram (DDVH). DDVH represents the relative volumemore » (y) on the vertical axis and the RMSD (x) on the horizontal axis. Similar to DVH, this means that y% of the volume of the indicated structure has the RMSD at least x Gy[RBE].The width from the first two methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95 and D5) and the area under the DDVH curves (AUC) for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. In these robustness quantification tools, the smaller the value, the more robust the plan is. Plan robustness evaluation metrics were compared using Wilcoxon test. Results: DVHB showed the width at D95 from IMRT to be larger than from VMAT (unit Gy) [1.59 vs 1.18 (p=0.49)], while the width at D5 from IMRT was found to be slightly larger than from VMAT [0.59 vs 0.54 (p=0.84)]. WCA showed similar results [D95: 3.28 vs 3.00 (p=0.56); D5: 1.68 vs 1.95 (p=0.23)]. DDVH showed the AUC from IMRT to be slightly smaller than from VMAT [1.13 vs 1.15 (p=0.43)]. Conclusion: VMAT plan robustness is comparable to IMRT plan robustness. The plan robustness conclusions from WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter dependent. On the other hand DDVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties on the dose to a volume of interest. NIH/NCI K25CA168984; Eagles Cancer Research Career Development; The Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research Mayo ASU Seed Grant; The Kemper Marley Foundation.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the potential benefits of robust optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy(IMPT) treatment planning to account for inter-fractional variation for Head Neck Cancer(HNC). Methods: One patient with bilateral HNC previous treated at our institution was used in this study. Ten daily CBCTs were selected. The CT numbers of the CBCTs were corrected by mapping the CT numbers from simulation CT via Deformable Image Registration. The planning target volumes(PTVs) were defined by a 3mm expansion from clinical target volumes(CTVs). The prescription was 70Gy, 54Gy to CTV1, CTV2, and PTV1, PTV2 for robust optimized(RO) and conventionally optimized(CO) plans respectively. Bothmore » techniques were generated by RayStation with the same beam angles: two anterior oblique and two posterior oblique angles. The similar dose constraints were used to achieve 99% of CTV1 received 100% prescription dose while kept the hotspots less than 110% of the prescription. In order to evaluate the dosimetric result through the course of treatment, the contours were deformed from simulation CT to daily CBCTs, modified, and approved by a radiation oncologist. The initial plan on the simulation CT was re-replayed on the daily CBCTs followed the bony alignment. The target coverage was evaluated using the daily doses and the cumulative dose. Results: Eight of 10 daily deliveries with using RO plan achieved at least 95% prescription dose to CTV1 and CTV2, while still kept maximum hotspot less than 112% of prescription compared with only one of 10 for the CO plan to achieve the same standards. For the cumulative doses, the target coverage for both RO and CO plans was quite similar, which was due to the compensation of cold and hot spots. Conclusion: Robust optimization can be effectively applied to compensate for target dose deficit caused by inter-fractional target geometric variation in IMPT treatment planning.« less
  • Purpose: Anatomic changes and positional variability during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer can lead to clinically significant dosimetric changes. We report our single-institution experience using an adaptive protocol and correlate these changes with anatomic and positional changes during treatment. Methods and Materials: Twenty-three sequential head and neck IMRT patients underwent serial computed tomography (CT) scans during their radiation course. After undergoing the planning CT scan, patients underwent planned rescans at 11, 22, and 33 fractions; a total of 89 scans with 129 unique CT plan combinations were thus analyzed. Positional variability and anatomic changes during treatmentmore » were correlated with changes in dosimetric parameters to target and avoidance structures between planning CT and subsequent scans. Results: A total of 15/23 patients (65%) benefited from adaptive planning, either due to inadequate dose to gross disease or to increased dose to organs at risk. Significant differences in primary and nodal targets (planning target volume, gross tumor volume, and clinical tumor volume), parotid, and spinal cord dosimetric parameters were noted throughout the treatment. Correlations were established between these dosimetric changes and weight loss, fraction number, multiple skin separations, and change in position of the skull, mandible, and cervical spine. Conclusions: Variations in patient positioning and anatomy changes during IMRT for head and neck cancer can affect dosimetric parameters and have wide-ranging clinical implications. The interplay between random positional variability and gradual anatomic changes requires careful clinical monitoring and frequent use of CT- based image-guided radiation therapy, which should determine variations necessitating new plans.« less