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

Title: SU-E-J-165: Dosimetric Impact of Liver Rotations in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Abstract

Purpose: Often in liver stereotactic body radiotherapy a single fiducial is implanted near the tumor for image-guided treatment delivery. In such cases, rotational corrections are calculated based on the spine. This study quantifies rotational differences between the spine and liver, and investigates the corresponding dosimetric impact. Methods: Seven patients with 3 intrahepatic fiducials and 4DCT scans were identified. The planning CT was separately co-registered with 4 phases of the 4DCT (0%, 50%, 100% inhale and 50% exhale) by 1) rigid registration of the spine, and 2) point-based registration of the 3 fiducials. Rotation vectors were calculated for each registration. Translational differences in fiducial positions between the 2 registrations methods were investigated. Dosimetric impact due to liver rotations and deformations was assessed using critical structures delineated on the 4DCT phases. For dose comparisons, a single fiducial was translationally aligned following spine alignment to represent what is typically done in the clinic. Results: On average, differences between spine and liver rotations during the 0%, 50%, 100% inhale, and 50% exhale phases were 3.23°, 3.27°, 2.26° and 3.11° (pitch), 3.00°, 2.24°, 3.12° and 1.73° (roll), and 1.57°, 1.98°, 2.09° and 1.36° (yaw), respectively. The maximum difference in rotations was 12°, with differences ofmore » >3° seen in 14/28 (pitch), 10/28 (roll), and 6/28 (yaw) cases. Average fiducial displacements of 2.73 (craniocaudal), 1.04 (lateral) and 1.82 mm (vertical) were seen. Evaluating percent dose differences for 5 patients at the peaks of the respiratory cycle, the maximum dose to the duodenum, stomach, bowel and esophagus differed on average by 11.4%, 5.3%, 11.2% and 49.1% between the 2 registration methods. Conclusion: Lack of accounting for liver rotation during treatment might Result in clinically significant dose differences to critical structures. Both rotational and translational deviations should be considered in planning margins when using spine alignment for liver treatments.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22499276
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CORRECTIONS; DEFORMATION; ESOPHAGUS; IMAGES; LIVER; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SMALL INTESTINE; STOMACH; VERTEBRAE

Citation Formats

Pinnaduwage, D, Paulsson, A, Sudhyadhom, A, Chen, J, Chang, A, Anwar, M, Gottschalk, A, Yom, S S., and Descovich, M. SU-E-J-165: Dosimetric Impact of Liver Rotations in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924250.
Pinnaduwage, D, Paulsson, A, Sudhyadhom, A, Chen, J, Chang, A, Anwar, M, Gottschalk, A, Yom, S S., & Descovich, M. SU-E-J-165: Dosimetric Impact of Liver Rotations in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924250.
Pinnaduwage, D, Paulsson, A, Sudhyadhom, A, Chen, J, Chang, A, Anwar, M, Gottschalk, A, Yom, S S., and Descovich, M. Mon . "SU-E-J-165: Dosimetric Impact of Liver Rotations in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924250.
@article{osti_22499276,
title = {SU-E-J-165: Dosimetric Impact of Liver Rotations in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy},
author = {Pinnaduwage, D and Paulsson, A and Sudhyadhom, A and Chen, J and Chang, A and Anwar, M and Gottschalk, A and Yom, S S. and Descovich, M},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Often in liver stereotactic body radiotherapy a single fiducial is implanted near the tumor for image-guided treatment delivery. In such cases, rotational corrections are calculated based on the spine. This study quantifies rotational differences between the spine and liver, and investigates the corresponding dosimetric impact. Methods: Seven patients with 3 intrahepatic fiducials and 4DCT scans were identified. The planning CT was separately co-registered with 4 phases of the 4DCT (0%, 50%, 100% inhale and 50% exhale) by 1) rigid registration of the spine, and 2) point-based registration of the 3 fiducials. Rotation vectors were calculated for each registration. Translational differences in fiducial positions between the 2 registrations methods were investigated. Dosimetric impact due to liver rotations and deformations was assessed using critical structures delineated on the 4DCT phases. For dose comparisons, a single fiducial was translationally aligned following spine alignment to represent what is typically done in the clinic. Results: On average, differences between spine and liver rotations during the 0%, 50%, 100% inhale, and 50% exhale phases were 3.23°, 3.27°, 2.26° and 3.11° (pitch), 3.00°, 2.24°, 3.12° and 1.73° (roll), and 1.57°, 1.98°, 2.09° and 1.36° (yaw), respectively. The maximum difference in rotations was 12°, with differences of >3° seen in 14/28 (pitch), 10/28 (roll), and 6/28 (yaw) cases. Average fiducial displacements of 2.73 (craniocaudal), 1.04 (lateral) and 1.82 mm (vertical) were seen. Evaluating percent dose differences for 5 patients at the peaks of the respiratory cycle, the maximum dose to the duodenum, stomach, bowel and esophagus differed on average by 11.4%, 5.3%, 11.2% and 49.1% between the 2 registration methods. Conclusion: Lack of accounting for liver rotation during treatment might Result in clinically significant dose differences to critical structures. Both rotational and translational deviations should be considered in planning margins when using spine alignment for liver treatments.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924250},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric difference between 3D and 4Dweighted dose calculation using patient specific respiratory trace and deformable image registration for stereotactic body radiation therapy in lung tumors. Methods: Two dose calculation techniques, 3D and 4D-weighed dose calculation, were used for dosimetric comparison for 9 lung cancer patients. The magnitude of the tumor motion varied from 3 mm to 23 mm. Breath-hold exhale CT was used for 3D dose calculation with ITV generated from the motion observed from 4D-CT. For 4D-weighted calculation, dose of each binned CT image from the ten breathing amplitudes was first recomputed using the samemore » planning parameters as those used in the 3D calculation. The dose distribution of each binned CT was mapped to the breath-hold CT using deformable image registration. The 4D-weighted dose was computed by summing the deformed doses with the temporal probabilities calculated from their corresponding respiratory traces. Dosimetric evaluation criteria includes lung V20, mean lung dose, and mean tumor dose. Results: Comparing with 3D calculation, lung V20, mean lung dose, and mean tumor dose using 4D-weighted dose calculation were changed by −0.67% ± 2.13%, −4.11% ± 6.94% (−0.36 Gy ± 0.87 Gy), −1.16% ± 1.36%(−0.73 Gy ± 0.85 Gy) accordingly. Conclusion: This work demonstrates that conventional 3D dose calculation method may overestimate the lung V20, MLD, and MTD. The absolute difference between 3D and 4D-weighted dose calculation in lung tumor may not be clinically significant. This research is supported by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc and Iowa Center for Research By Undergraduates.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy between recomputed dose and deformed dose for stereotactic body radiation therapy in lung tumors. Methods: Two non-small-cell lung cancer patients were analyzed in this study, both of whom underwent 4D-CT and breath-hold CT imaging. Treatment planning was performed using the breath-hold CT images for the dose calculation and the 4D-CT images for determining internal target volumes. 4D-CT images were reconstructed with ten breathing amplitude for each patient. Maximum tumor motion was 13 mm for patient 1, and 7 mm for patient 2. The delivered dose was calculated using the 4D-CT images and using themore » same planning parameters as for the breath-hold CT. The deformed dose was computed by deforming the planning dose using the deformable image registration between each binned CT and the breath-hold CT. Results: For patient 1, the difference between recomputed dose and deformed mean lung dose (MLD) ranged from 11.3%(0.5 Gy) to 1.1%(0.06 Gy), mean tumor dose (MTD) ranged from 0.4%(0.19 Gy) to −1.3%(−0.6 Gy), lung V20 ranged from +0.74% to −0.33%. The differences in all three dosimetric criteria remain relatively invariant to target motion. For patient 2, V20 ranged from +0.42% to −2.41%, MLD ranged from −0.2%(−0.05 Gy) to −10.4%(−2.12 Gy), and MTD ranged from −0.5%(−0.31 Gy) to −5.3%(−3.24 Gy). The difference between recomputed dose and deformed dose shows strong correlation with tumor motion in all three dosimetric measurements. Conclusion: The correlation between dosimetric criteria and tumor motion is patient-specific, depending on the tumor locations, motion pattern, and deformable image registration accuracy. Deformed dose can be a good approximation for recalculated dose when tumor motion is small. This research is supported by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc and Iowa Center for Research By Undergraduates.« less
  • Purpose: To explore the dosimetric consequences of uncorrected rotational setup errors during SBRT for pancreatic cancer patients. Methods: This was a retrospective study utilizing data from ten (n=10) previously treated SBRT pancreas patients. For each original planning CT, we applied rotational transformations to derive additional CT images representative of possible rotational setup errors. This resulted in 6 different sets of rotational combinations, creating a total of 60 CT planning images. The patients’ clinical dosimetric plans were then applied to their corresponding rotated CT images. The 6 rotation sets encompassed a 3, 2 and 1-degree rotation in each rotational direction andmore » a 3-degree in just the pitch, a 3-degree in just the yaw and a 3-degree in just the roll. After the dosimetric plan was applied to the rotated CT images, the resulting plan was then evaluated and compared with the clinical plan for tumor coverage and normal tissue sparing. Results: PTV coverage, defined here by V33 throughout all of the patients’ clinical plans, ranged from 92–98%. After an n degree rotation in each rotational direction that range decreased to 68–87%, 85–92%, and 88– 94% for n=3, 2 and 1 respectively. Normal tissue sparing defined here by the proximal stomach V15 throughout all of the patients’ clinical plans ranged from 0–8.9 cc. After an n degree rotation in each rotational direction that range increased to 0–17 cc, 0–12 cc, and 0–10 cc for n=3, 2, and 1 respectively. Conclusion: For pancreatic SBRT, small rotational setup errors in the pitch, yaw and roll direction on average caused under dosage to PTV and over dosage to proximal normal tissue. The 1-degree rotation was on average the least detrimental to the normal tissue and the coverage of the PTV. The 3-degree yaw created on average the lowest increase in volume coverage to normal tissue. This research was sponsored by the AAPM Education Council through the AAPM Education and Research Fund for the AAPM Summer Undergraduate Fellowship Program.« less
  • Purpose: Respiratory motion in thoracic and abdominal region could lead to significant underdosing of target and increased dose to healthy tissues. The aim of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric effect of respiratory motion in conventional 3D dose by comparing 4D deformable dose in liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: Five patients who had previously treated liver SBRT were included in this study. Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) images with 10 phases for all patients were acquired on multi-slice CT scanner (Siemens, Somatom definition). Conventional 3D planning was performed using the average intensity projection (AIP) images. 4D dose accumulation wasmore » calculated by summation of dose distribution for all phase images of 4DCT using deformable image registration (DIR) . The target volume and normal organs dose were evaluated with the 4D dose and compared with those from 3D dose. And also, Index of achievement (IOA) which assesses the consistency between planned dose and prescription dose was used to compare target dose distribution between 3D and 4D dose. Results: Although the 3D dose calculation considered the moving target coverage, significant differences of various dosimetric parameters between 4D and 3D dose were observed in normal organs and PTV. The conventional 3D dose overestimated dose to PTV, however, there was no significant difference for GTV. The average difference of IOA which become ‘1’ in an ideal case was 3.2% in PTV. The average difference of liver and duodenum was 5% and 16% respectively. Conclusion: 4D dose accumulation which can provide dosimetric effect of respiratory motion has a possibility to predict the more accurate delivered dose to target and normal organs and improve treatment accuracy. This work was supported by the Radiation Technology R&D program (No. 2013M2A2A7043498) and the Mid-career Researcher Program (2014R1A2A1A10050270) through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT&Future Planning (MSIP) of Korea.« less
  • Purpose: This study evaluates the dosimetric differences using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients previously treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy IMRT for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in early stage lung cancer. Methods: We evaluated 9 consecutive medically inoperable lung cancer patients at the start of the SBRT program who were treated with IMRT from November 2010 to October 2011. These patients were treated using 6 MV energy. The 9 cases were then re-planned with VMAT performed with arc therapy using 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) energy with the same organs at risk (OARS) constraints. Data collected formore » the treatment plans included target coverage, beam on time, dose to OARS and gamma pass rate. Results: Five patients were T1N0 and four patients were T2N0 with all tumors less than 5 cm. The average GTV was 13.02 cm3 (0.83–40.87) and average PTV was 44.65 cm3 (14.06–118.08). The IMRT plans had a mean of 7.2 angles (6–9) and 5.4 minutes (3.6–11.1) per plan. The VMAT plans had a mean of 2.8 arcs (2–3) and 4.0 minutes (2.2–6.0) per plan. VMAT had slightly more target coverage than IMRT with average increase in D95 of 2.68% (1.24–5.73) and D99 of 3.65% (0.88–8.77). VMAT produced lower doses to all OARs. The largest reductions were in maximum doses to the spinal cord with an average reduction of 24.1%, esophagus with an average reduction of 22.1%, and lung with an average reduction in the V20 of 16.3% The mean gamma pass rate was 99.8% (99.2–100) at 3 mm and 3% for VMAT with comparable values for IMRT. Conclusion: These findings suggest that using VMAT for SBRT in early stage lung cancer is superior to IMRT in terms of dose coverage, OAR dose and a lower treatment delivery time with a similar gamma pass rate.« less