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

Title: SU-E-T-620: Planning and Dosimetry for Pulsed Low Dose Rate RT for Recurrent Lung, Spine, GYN and Head and Neck Cancers

Abstract

Purpose: Extensive in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that pulsed low dose rate (PLDR) radiotherapy has potential to provide significant local tumor control and to reduce normal tissue toxicities. This work investigated the planning and dosimetry of PLDR re-irradiation for recurrent cancers. Methods: We analyzed the treatment plans and dosimetry for 13 recurrent patients who were treated with the PLDR technique in this study. All cases were planned with the 3DCRT technique with optimal beam angle selection. The treatment was performed on a Siemens accelerator using 6MV beams. The target volume ranged between 161 and 703cc. The previous RT dose was 40–60Gy while the re-irradiation dose was 16–60Gy. The interval between previous RT and re-irradiation was 13–336 months, and the follow-up time was up to 27months. The total prescription dose was administered in 2Gy/day fractions with the daily dose delivered in 10 sub-fractions (pulses) of 20cGy with a 3min interval between the pulses to achieve an effective dose rate of 6.7cGy/min. Results: The clinical outcome was analyzed based on the treatment plans. All pulses were kept with Dmax<40cGy. The PLDR treatments were effective (CR: 3 patients, PR: 10 patients). The acute and late toxicities were all acceptable (generallymore » grade II or under). Two patients died three months after the PLDR re-irradiation, one due to massive cerebral infarction and the other due to acute cardiac failure. All others survived more than 8 months. Five patients showed good conditions at the last follow-up. Among them two recurrent lung cancer patients had survived 23 months and one nasopharyngeal cancer patient had survived 27 months. Conclusion: The PLDR technique was effective for the palliative treatment of head and neck, lung, spine and GYN cancers. Further phase II and III studies are warranted to quantify the efficacy of PLDR for recurrent cancers.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]; ;  [2]
  1. 3rd Affiliated Hospital of Qiqihar Medical University, Qiqihar (China)
  2. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22538129
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:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; DOSE RATES; DOSIMETRY; HEAD; IN VITRO; IN VIVO; LUNGS; NECK; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PULSES; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; VERTEBRAE

Citation Formats

Tong, X, Luo, F, Liu, Y, Zhang, W, Xu, Q, Zhang, T, Li, J, Chen, L, and Ma, C. SU-E-T-620: Planning and Dosimetry for Pulsed Low Dose Rate RT for Recurrent Lung, Spine, GYN and Head and Neck Cancers. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924983.
Tong, X, Luo, F, Liu, Y, Zhang, W, Xu, Q, Zhang, T, Li, J, Chen, L, & Ma, C. SU-E-T-620: Planning and Dosimetry for Pulsed Low Dose Rate RT for Recurrent Lung, Spine, GYN and Head and Neck Cancers. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924983.
Tong, X, Luo, F, Liu, Y, Zhang, W, Xu, Q, Zhang, T, Li, J, Chen, L, and Ma, C. Mon . "SU-E-T-620: Planning and Dosimetry for Pulsed Low Dose Rate RT for Recurrent Lung, Spine, GYN and Head and Neck Cancers". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924983.
@article{osti_22538129,
title = {SU-E-T-620: Planning and Dosimetry for Pulsed Low Dose Rate RT for Recurrent Lung, Spine, GYN and Head and Neck Cancers},
author = {Tong, X and Luo, F and Liu, Y and Zhang, W and Xu, Q and Zhang, T and Li, J and Chen, L and Ma, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Extensive in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that pulsed low dose rate (PLDR) radiotherapy has potential to provide significant local tumor control and to reduce normal tissue toxicities. This work investigated the planning and dosimetry of PLDR re-irradiation for recurrent cancers. Methods: We analyzed the treatment plans and dosimetry for 13 recurrent patients who were treated with the PLDR technique in this study. All cases were planned with the 3DCRT technique with optimal beam angle selection. The treatment was performed on a Siemens accelerator using 6MV beams. The target volume ranged between 161 and 703cc. The previous RT dose was 40–60Gy while the re-irradiation dose was 16–60Gy. The interval between previous RT and re-irradiation was 13–336 months, and the follow-up time was up to 27months. The total prescription dose was administered in 2Gy/day fractions with the daily dose delivered in 10 sub-fractions (pulses) of 20cGy with a 3min interval between the pulses to achieve an effective dose rate of 6.7cGy/min. Results: The clinical outcome was analyzed based on the treatment plans. All pulses were kept with Dmax<40cGy. The PLDR treatments were effective (CR: 3 patients, PR: 10 patients). The acute and late toxicities were all acceptable (generally grade II or under). Two patients died three months after the PLDR re-irradiation, one due to massive cerebral infarction and the other due to acute cardiac failure. All others survived more than 8 months. Five patients showed good conditions at the last follow-up. Among them two recurrent lung cancer patients had survived 23 months and one nasopharyngeal cancer patient had survived 27 months. Conclusion: The PLDR technique was effective for the palliative treatment of head and neck, lung, spine and GYN cancers. Further phase II and III studies are warranted to quantify the efficacy of PLDR for recurrent cancers.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924983},
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 assess dose calculated by the 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Systems, Melbourne, FL) against TLD measurements and treatment planning system calculations in anthropomorphic phantoms. Methods: The IROC Houston (RPC) head and neck (HN) and lung phantoms were scanned and plans were generated using Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA) following IROC Houston procedures. For the H and N phantom, 6 MV VMAT and 9-field dynamic MLC (DMLC) plans were created. For the lung phantom 6 MV VMAT and 15 MV 9-field dynamic MLC (DMLC) plans were created. The plans were delivered to the phantoms and to an ArcCHECK (Sunmore » Nuclear Systems, Melbourne, FL). The head and neck phantom contained 8 TLDs located at PTV1 (4), PTV2 (2), and OAR Cord (2). The lung phantom contained 4 TLDs, 2 in the PTV, 1 in the cord, and 1 in the heart. Daily outputs were recorded before each measurement for correction. 3DVH dose reconstruction software was used to project the calculated dose to patient anatomy. Results: For the HN phantom, the maximum difference between 3DVH and TLDs was -3.4% and between 3DVH and Eclipse was 1.2%. For the lung plan the maximum difference between 3DVH and TLDs was 4.3%, except for the spinal cord for which 3DVH overestimated the TLD dose by 12%. The maximum difference between 3DVH and Eclipse was 0.3%. 3DVH agreed well with Eclipse because the dose reconstruction algorithm uses the diode measurements to perturb the dose calculated by the treatment planning system; therefore, if there is a problem in the modeling or heterogeneity correction, it will be carried through to 3DVH. Conclusion: 3DVH agreed well with Eclipse and TLD measurements. Comparison of 3DVH with film measurements is ongoing. Work supported by PHS grant CA10953 and CA81647 (NCI, DHHS)« less
  • Purpose: To describe a newly designed proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) planning technique for radiotherapy of patients with bilateral oropharyngeal cancer, and to assess plan robustness. Methods: We treated 10 patients with proton PBS plans using 2 posterior oblique field (2F PBS) comprised of 80% single-field uniform dose (SFUD) and 20% intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). All patients underwent weekly CT scans for verification. Using dosimetric indicators for both targets and organs at risk (OARs), we quantitatively compared initial plans and verification plans using student t-tests. We created a second proton PBS plan for each patient using 2 posterior oblique plusmore » 1 anterior field comprised of 100% SFUD (3F PBS). We assessed plan robustness for both proton plan groups, as well as a photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan group by comparing initial and verification plans. Results: The 2F PBS plans were not robust in target coverage. D98% for clinical target volume (CTV) degraded from 100% to 96% on average, with maximum change Δ D98% of −24%. Two patients were moved to photon VMAT treatment due to insufficient CTV coverage on verification plans. Plan robustness was especially weak in the low-anterior neck. The 3F PBS plans, however, demonstrated robust target coverage, which was comparable to the VMAT photon plan group. Doses to oral cavity were lower in the Proton PBS plans compared to photon VMAT plans due to no lower exit dose to the oral cavity. Conclusion: Proton PBS plans using 2 posterior oblique fields were not robust for CTV coverage, due to variable positioning of redundant soft tissue in the posterior neck. We designed 3-field proton PBS plans using an anterior field to avoid long heterogeneous paths in the low neck. These 3-field proton PBS plans had significantly improved plan robustness, and the robustness is comparable to VMAT photon plans.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the adherence of treatment plans of prostate cancer patients with the dosimetric compliance criteria of the new in house phase I trial of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. Methods: Ten prostate cancer patients were treated using this trial. They received one fraction of HDR to 15Gy, followed by external beam(EB) boost of 3.2Gy(Level 1, five patients) or 3.94Gy(level 2, five patients) per fraction for 10 or 7 fractions, respectively, both equivalent to EB treatments of 113.5Gy in 2Gy fractions. The EB plans were either IMRTmore » or VMAT plans. DVH analysis was performed to verify the adherence of treatment plans to the dosimetric criteria of the trial. Results: For Level 1 patients, target coverage were adequate, with CTV V32Gy(%) of 99.0±1.0 (mean ± 1 standard deviation), and PTV V31Gy(%) of 99.6±0.3. PTV V32.9Gy(%) is 1.4±3.1 and PTVmax is 32.9±0.2Gy. Rectum, bladder and femoral heads sparing were well within protocol criteria. For Level 2 patients, CTV V27.6Gy(%) is 98.7±1.8; PTV V26.7Gy(%) is 99.0±1.4. PTV V28.4Gy(%) is 1.3±1.4, with three patients having minor deviation from protocol. Again critical structures were spared compliant to the protocol. The analysis of HDR plans show similar results, with adequate dose coverage to the prostate and sparing of critical structures including urethra and rectum. V100(%) and V90(%) of prostate are 96.0±1.1 and 98.9±0.5. Urethra D10(%) is 113.1±2.9. Rectum V80(cc) is 1.4±0.5. Hotspot in prostate is substantially higher than what the protocol specifies. But the criteria for hotspot are only guidelines, serving to lower the dose to urethra . Conclusion: This new high biological equivalent dose prostate trial has been carried out successfully for ten patients. Based on dosimetric analysis, all HDR and external plans were compliant to the protocol criteria, with only minor deviations.« less
  • Purpose: Knowledge Based Radiation Therapy Treatment (KBRT) planning can be used to semi-automatically generate IMRT plans for new patients using constraints derived from previously manually-planned, geometrically similar patients. We investigate whether KBRT plans can achieve greater dose sparing than manual plans using optimized, organspecific constraint weighting factors. Methods: KBRT planning of HNC radiotherapy cases geometrically matched each new (query) case to one of the 105 clinically approved plans in our database. The dose distribution of the planned match was morphed to fit the querys geometry. Dose-volume constraints extracted from the morphed dose distribution were used to run the IMRT optimizationmore » with no user input. In the first version, all constraints were multiplied by a weighting factor of 0.7. The weighting factors were then systematically optimized (in order of OARs with increasing separation from the target) to maximize sparing to each OAR without compromising other OARs. The optimized, second version plans were compared against the first version plans and the clinically approved plans for 45 unilateral/bilateral target cases using the dose metrics: mean, median and maximum (brainstem and cord) doses. Results: Compared to the first version, the second version significantly reduced mean/median contralateral parotid doses (>2Gy) for bilateral cases. Other changes between the two versions were not clinically meaningful. Compared to the original clinical plans, both bilateral and unilateral plans in the second version had lower average dose metrics for 5 of the 6 OARs. Compared to the original plans, the second version achieved dose sparing that was at least as good for all OARs and better for the ipsilateral parotid (bilateral) and oral cavity (bilateral/unilateral). Differences in planning target volume coverage metrics were not clinically significant. Conclusion: HNC-KBRT planning generated IMRT plans with at least equivalent dose sparing to manually generated plans; greater dose sparing was achieved in selected OARs.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of the Acuros XB version 11 (AXB11) advanced dose calculation algorithm by comparing with Monte Caro (MC) calculations. The comparisons were performed with dose distributions for a virtual inhomogeneity phantom and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in head and neck. Methods: Recently, AXB based on Linear Boltzmann Transport Equation has been installed in the Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Oncology System, USA). The dose calculation accuracy of AXB11 was tested by the EGSnrc-MC calculations. In additions, AXB version 10 (AXB10) and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) were also used. First the accuracy of an inhomogeneity correction formore » AXB and AAA algorithms was evaluated by comparing with MC-calculated dose distributions for a virtual inhomogeneity phantom that includes water, bone, air, adipose, muscle, and aluminum. Next the IMRT dose distributions for head and neck were compared with the AXB and AAA algorithms and MC by means of dose volume histograms and three dimensional gamma analysis for each structure (CTV, OAR, etc.). Results: For dose distributions with the virtual inhomogeneity phantom, AXB was in good agreement with those of MC, except the dose in air region. The dose in air region decreased in order of MC« less