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

Title: SU-F-T-242: A Method for Collision Avoidance in External Beam Radiation Therapy

Abstract

Purpose: We proposed a method for collision avoidance (CA) in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The method encompasses the analysis of all positions of the moving components of the beam delivery system such as the treatment table and gantry, including patient specific information obtained from the CT images. This method eliminates the need for time-consuming dry-runs prior to the actual treatments. Methods: The QA procedure for EBRT requires that the collision should be checked prior to treatment. We developed a system capable of a rigorous computer simulation of all moving components including positions of the couch and gantry during the delivery, position of the patients, and imaging equipment. By running this treatment simulation it is possible to quantify and graphically represent all positions and corresponding trajectories of all points of the moving parts during the treatment delivery. The development of the workflow for implementation of the CA includes several steps: a) derivation of combined dynamic equation of motion of the EBRT delivery systems, b) developing the simulation model capable of drawing the motion trajectories of the specific points, c) developing the interface between the model and the treatment plan parameters such as couch and gantry parameters for each field. Results:more » The patient CT images were registered to the treatment couch so the patient dimensions were included into the simulation. The treatment field parameters were structured in the xml-file which was used as the input into the dynamic equations. The trajectories of the moving components were plotted on the same graph using the dynamic equations. If the trajectories intersect that was the signal that collision exists. Conclusion: This CA method was proved to be effective in the simulation of treatment delivery. The proper implementation of this system can potentially improve the QA program and increase the efficacy in the clinical setup.« less

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648858
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; AVOIDANCE; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; CAT SCANNING; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIATION THERAPY; PATIENTS

Citation Formats

Buzurovic, I, and Cormack, R. SU-F-T-242: A Method for Collision Avoidance in External Beam Radiation Therapy. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956382.
Buzurovic, I, & Cormack, R. SU-F-T-242: A Method for Collision Avoidance in External Beam Radiation Therapy. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956382.
Buzurovic, I, and Cormack, R. 2016. "SU-F-T-242: A Method for Collision Avoidance in External Beam Radiation Therapy". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956382.
@article{osti_22648858,
title = {SU-F-T-242: A Method for Collision Avoidance in External Beam Radiation Therapy},
author = {Buzurovic, I and Cormack, R},
abstractNote = {Purpose: We proposed a method for collision avoidance (CA) in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The method encompasses the analysis of all positions of the moving components of the beam delivery system such as the treatment table and gantry, including patient specific information obtained from the CT images. This method eliminates the need for time-consuming dry-runs prior to the actual treatments. Methods: The QA procedure for EBRT requires that the collision should be checked prior to treatment. We developed a system capable of a rigorous computer simulation of all moving components including positions of the couch and gantry during the delivery, position of the patients, and imaging equipment. By running this treatment simulation it is possible to quantify and graphically represent all positions and corresponding trajectories of all points of the moving parts during the treatment delivery. The development of the workflow for implementation of the CA includes several steps: a) derivation of combined dynamic equation of motion of the EBRT delivery systems, b) developing the simulation model capable of drawing the motion trajectories of the specific points, c) developing the interface between the model and the treatment plan parameters such as couch and gantry parameters for each field. Results: The patient CT images were registered to the treatment couch so the patient dimensions were included into the simulation. The treatment field parameters were structured in the xml-file which was used as the input into the dynamic equations. The trajectories of the moving components were plotted on the same graph using the dynamic equations. If the trajectories intersect that was the signal that collision exists. Conclusion: This CA method was proved to be effective in the simulation of treatment delivery. The proper implementation of this system can potentially improve the QA program and increase the efficacy in the clinical setup.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956382},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Effective cancer treatment generally requires combination therapy. The combination of external beam therapy (XRT) with radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) requires accurate three-dimensional dose calculations to avoid toxicity and evaluate efficacy. We have developed and tested a treatment planning method, using the patient-specific three-dimensional dosimetry package 3D-RD, for sequentially combined RPT/XRT therapy designed to limit toxicity to organs at risk. Methods and Materials: The biologic effective dose (BED) was used to translate voxelized RPT absorbed dose (D{sub RPT}) values into a normalized total dose (or equivalent 2-Gy-fraction XRT absorbed dose), NTD{sub RPT} map. The BED was calculated numerically using an algorithmicmore » approach, which enabled a more accurate calculation of BED and NTD{sub RPT}. A treatment plan from the combined Samarium-153 and external beam was designed that would deliver a tumoricidal dose while delivering no more than 50 Gy of NTD{sub sum} to the spinal cord of a patient with a paraspinal tumor. Results: The average voxel NTD{sub RPT} to tumor from RPT was 22.6 Gy (range, 1-85 Gy); the maximum spinal cord voxel NTD{sub RPT} from RPT was 6.8 Gy. The combined therapy NTD{sub sum} to tumor was 71.5 Gy (range, 40-135 Gy) for a maximum voxel spinal cord NTD{sub sum} equal to the maximum tolerated dose of 50 Gy. Conclusions: A method that enables real-time treatment planning of combined RPT-XRT has been developed. By implementing a more generalized conversion between the dose values from the two modalities and an activity-based treatment of partial volume effects, the reliability of combination therapy treatment planning has been expanded.« less
  • Background: A joint analysis of data from centers involved in the Spanish Cooperative Initiative for Intraoperative Electron Radiotherapy was performed to investigate long-term outcomes of locally recurrent soft tissue sarcoma (LR-STS) patients treated with a multidisciplinary approach. Methods and Materials: Patients with a histologic diagnosis of LR-STS (extremity, 43%; trunk wall, 24%; retroperitoneum, 33%) and no distant metastases who underwent radical surgery and intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT; median dose, 12.5 Gy) were considered eligible for participation in this study. In addition, 62% received external beam radiation therapy (EBRT; median dose, 50 Gy). Results: From 1986 to 2012, a totalmore » of 103 patients from 3 Spanish expert IOERT institutions were analyzed. With a median follow-up of 57 months (range, 2-311 months), 5-year local control (LC) was 60%. The 5-year IORT in-field control, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival were 73%, 43%, and 52%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, no EBRT to treat the LR-STS (P=.02) and microscopically involved margin resection status (P=.04) retained significance in relation to LC. With regard to IORT in-field control, only not delivering EBRT to the LR-STS retained significance in the multivariate analysis (P=.03). Conclusion: This joint analysis revealed that surgical margin and EBRT affect LC but that, given the high risk of distant metastases, DFS remains modest. Intensified local treatment needs to be further tested in the context of more efficient concurrent, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant systemic therapy.« less
  • Purpose: Using real-time electromagnetic (EM) transponder tracking data recorded by the Calypso 4D Localization System, we report inter- and intrafractional target motion of the prostate bed, describe a strategy to evaluate treatment adequacy in postprostatectomy patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and propose an adaptive workflow. Methods and Materials: Tracking data recorded by Calypso EM transponders was analyzed for postprostatectomy patients that underwent step-and-shoot IMRT. Rigid target motion parameters during beam delivery were calculated from recorded transponder positions in 16 patients with rigid transponder geometry. The delivered doses to the clinical target volume (CTV) were estimated from the plannedmore » dose matrix and the target motion for the first 3, 5, 10, and all fractions. Treatment adequacy was determined by comparing the delivered minimum dose (D{sub min}) with the planned D{sub min} to the CTV. Treatments were considered adequate if the delivered CTV D{sub min} is at least 95% of the planned CTV D{sub min}. Results: Translational target motion was minimal for all 16 patients (mean: 0.02 cm; range: −0.12 cm to 0.07 cm). Rotational motion was patient-specific, and maximum pitch, yaw, and roll were 12.2, 4.1, and 10.5°, respectively. We observed inadequate treatments in 5 patients. In these treatments, we observed greater target rotations along with large distances between the CTV centroid and transponder centroid. The treatment adequacy from the initial 10 fractions successfully predicted the overall adequacy in 4 of 5 inadequate treatments and 10 of 11 adequate treatments. Conclusion: Target rotational motion could cause underdosage to partial volume of the postprostatectomy targets. Our adaptive treatment strategy is applicable to post-prostatectomy patients receiving IMRT to evaluate and improve radiation therapy delivery.« less
  • Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been proposed for the palliation of painful vertebral bone metastases because higher radiation doses may result in superior and more durable pain control. A phase III clinical trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0631) comparing single fraction SBRT with single fraction external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in palliative treatment of painful vertebral bone metastases is now ongoing. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare these strategies. Methods and Materials: A Markov model, using a 1-month cycle over a lifetime horizon, was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of SBRT (16 or 18 Gy in 1 fraction)more » with that of 8 Gy in 1 fraction of EBRT. Transition probabilities, quality of life utilities, and costs associated with SBRT and EBRT were captured in the model. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement in 2014. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). To account for uncertainty, 1-way, 2-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Strategies were evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Results: Base case pain relief after the treatment was assumed as 20% higher in SBRT. Base case treatment costs for SBRT and EBRT were $9000 and $1087, respectively. In the base case analysis, SBRT resulted in an ICER of $124,552 per QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to variation of the utility of unrelieved pain; the utility of relieved pain after initial treatment and median survival were also sensitive to variation. If median survival is ≥11 months, SBRT cost <$100,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: SBRT for palliation of vertebral bone metastases is not cost-effective compared with EBRT at a $100,000 per QALY gained WTP threshold. However, if median survival is ≥11 months, SBRT costs ≤$100,000 per QALY gained, suggesting that selective SBRT use in patients with longer expected survival may be the most cost-effective approach.« less
  • Purpose: We compare the efficacy and toxicity among the 3 major modalities available used to treat high-risk prostate cancer (HRCaP). Methods and Materials: From 1996 to 2012, 2557 HRCaP patients were treated: 734 received external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), 515 received low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR) with or without ADT, and 1308 received radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without EBRT. Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), clinical relapse-free survival (cRFS), and prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) were assessed. Toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. The log-rank test compared bRFS andmore » cRFS among the modalities, and Cox regression identified factors associated with bRFS and cRFS. Gray's test compared differences in late toxicity and PSCM among the modalities. Competing risk regression identified factors associated with PCSM. Results: The median follow-up time and age were 63.5 months and 65 years, respectively. The bRFS at 5 and 10 years, respectively, was 74% and 53% for EBRT, 74% and 52% for LDR, and 65% and 47% for RP (P=.0001). The cRFS at 5 and 10 years, respectively, was 85% and 73% for EBRT, 90% and 76% for LDR, and 89% and 75% for RP (P=.121). The PCSM at 5 and 10 years, respectively, was 5.3% and 11.2% for EBRT, 3.2% and 3.6% for LDR, and 2.8% and 6.8% for RP (P=.0004). The 10-year cumulative incidence of ≥grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was 8.1% for EBRT, 7.2% for LDR, and 16.4% for RP (P<.0001). The 10-year cumulative incidence of ≥grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was 4.6% for EBRT, 1.1% for LDR, and 1.0% for RP (P<.0001). Conclusion: HRCaP treated with EBRT, LDR, or RP yields efficacy showing better bRFS for LDR and EBRT relative to RP, equivalence for cRFS, and a PCSM advantage of LDR and RP over EBRT. The toxicity is lowest for LDR.« less