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

Title: SU-F-T-387: A Novel Optimization Technique for Field in Field (FIF) Chestwall Radiation Therapy Using a Single Plan to Improve Delivery Safety and Treatment Planning Efficiency

Abstract

Purpose: A novel optimization technique was developed for field-in-field (FIF) chestwall radiotherapy using bolus every other day. The dosimetry was compared to currently used optimization. Methods: The prior five patients treated at our clinic to the chestwall and supraclavicular nodes with a mono-isocentric four-field arrangement were selected for this study. The prescription was 5040 cGy in 28 fractions, 5 mm bolus every other day on the tangent fields, 6 and/or 10 MV x-rays, and multileaf collimation.Novelly, tangents FIF segments were forward planned optimized based on the composite bolus and non-bolus dose distribution simultaneously. The prescription was spilt into 14 fractions for both bolus and non-bolus tangents. The same segments and monitor units were used for the bolus and non-bolus treatment. The plan was optimized until the desired coverage was achieved, minimized 105% hotspots, and a maximum dose of less than 108%. Each tangential field had less than 5 segments.Comparison plans were generated using FIF optimization with the same dosimetric goals, but using only the non-bolus calculation for FIF optimization. The non-bolus fields were then copied and bolus was applied. The same segments and monitor units were used for the bolus and non-bolus segments. Results: The prescription coverage of the chestwall,more » as defined by RTOG guidelines, was on average 51.8% for the plans that optimized bolus and non-bolus treatments simultaneous (SB) and 43.8% for the plans optimized to the non-bolus treatments (NB). Chestwall coverage of 90% prescription averaged to 80.4% for SB and 79.6% for NB plans. The volume receiving 105% of the prescription was 1.9% for SB and 0.8% for NB plans on average. Conclusion: Simultaneously optimizing for bolus and non-bolus treatments noticeably improves prescription coverage of the chestwall while maintaining similar hotspots and 90% prescription coverage in comparison to optimizing only to non-bolus treatments.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Bayonne Medical Center, Bayonne, New Jersey (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648985
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; OPTIMIZATION; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY; X RADIATION

Citation Formats

Tabibian, A, Kim, A, Rose, J, Alvelo, M, Perel, C, Laiken, K, and Sheth, N. SU-F-T-387: A Novel Optimization Technique for Field in Field (FIF) Chestwall Radiation Therapy Using a Single Plan to Improve Delivery Safety and Treatment Planning Efficiency. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956572.
Tabibian, A, Kim, A, Rose, J, Alvelo, M, Perel, C, Laiken, K, & Sheth, N. SU-F-T-387: A Novel Optimization Technique for Field in Field (FIF) Chestwall Radiation Therapy Using a Single Plan to Improve Delivery Safety and Treatment Planning Efficiency. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956572.
Tabibian, A, Kim, A, Rose, J, Alvelo, M, Perel, C, Laiken, K, and Sheth, N. 2016. "SU-F-T-387: A Novel Optimization Technique for Field in Field (FIF) Chestwall Radiation Therapy Using a Single Plan to Improve Delivery Safety and Treatment Planning Efficiency". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956572.
@article{osti_22648985,
title = {SU-F-T-387: A Novel Optimization Technique for Field in Field (FIF) Chestwall Radiation Therapy Using a Single Plan to Improve Delivery Safety and Treatment Planning Efficiency},
author = {Tabibian, A and Kim, A and Rose, J and Alvelo, M and Perel, C and Laiken, K and Sheth, N},
abstractNote = {Purpose: A novel optimization technique was developed for field-in-field (FIF) chestwall radiotherapy using bolus every other day. The dosimetry was compared to currently used optimization. Methods: The prior five patients treated at our clinic to the chestwall and supraclavicular nodes with a mono-isocentric four-field arrangement were selected for this study. The prescription was 5040 cGy in 28 fractions, 5 mm bolus every other day on the tangent fields, 6 and/or 10 MV x-rays, and multileaf collimation.Novelly, tangents FIF segments were forward planned optimized based on the composite bolus and non-bolus dose distribution simultaneously. The prescription was spilt into 14 fractions for both bolus and non-bolus tangents. The same segments and monitor units were used for the bolus and non-bolus treatment. The plan was optimized until the desired coverage was achieved, minimized 105% hotspots, and a maximum dose of less than 108%. Each tangential field had less than 5 segments.Comparison plans were generated using FIF optimization with the same dosimetric goals, but using only the non-bolus calculation for FIF optimization. The non-bolus fields were then copied and bolus was applied. The same segments and monitor units were used for the bolus and non-bolus segments. Results: The prescription coverage of the chestwall, as defined by RTOG guidelines, was on average 51.8% for the plans that optimized bolus and non-bolus treatments simultaneous (SB) and 43.8% for the plans optimized to the non-bolus treatments (NB). Chestwall coverage of 90% prescription averaged to 80.4% for SB and 79.6% for NB plans. The volume receiving 105% of the prescription was 1.9% for SB and 0.8% for NB plans on average. Conclusion: Simultaneously optimizing for bolus and non-bolus treatments noticeably improves prescription coverage of the chestwall while maintaining similar hotspots and 90% prescription coverage in comparison to optimizing only to non-bolus treatments.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956572},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To investigate the effect of monitor unit (MU) constraints on the dose distribution created by intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning using single-field optimization (SFO). Methods: Ninety-four energies between 72.5 and 221.8 MeV are available for scanning beam IMPT delivery at our institution. The minimum and maximum MUs for delivering each pencil beam (spot) are 0.005 and 0.04, respectively. These MU constraints are not considered during optimization by the treatment planning system; spots are converted to deliverable MUs during postprocessing. Treatment plans for delivering uniform doses to rectangular volumes with and without MU constraints were generated for differentmore » target doses, spot spacings, spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) widths, and ranges in a homogeneous phantom. Four prostate cancer patients were planned with and without MU constraints using different spot spacings. Rounding errors were analyzed using an in-house software tool. Results: From the phantom study, the authors have found that both the number of spots that have rounding errors and the magnitude of the distortion of the dose distribution from the ideally optimized distribution increases as the field dose, spot spacing, and range decrease and as the SOBP width increases. From our study of patient plans, it is clear that as the spot spacing decreases the rounding error increases, and the dose coverage of the target volume becomes unacceptable for very small spot spacings. Conclusions: Constraints on deliverable MU for each spot could create a significant distortion from the ideally optimized dose distributions for IMPT fields using SFO. To eliminate this problem, the treatment planning system should incorporate the MU constraints in the optimization process and the delivery system should reliably delivery smaller minimum MUs.« less
  • Purpose: To clinically evaluate the differences in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plan and delivery between two commercial treatment planning systems. Methods: Two commercial VMAT treatment planning systems with different VMAT optimization algorithms and delivery approaches were evaluated. This study included 16 clinical VMAT plans performed with the first system: 2 spine, 4 head and neck (HN), 2 brain, 4 pancreas, and 4 pelvis plans. These 16 plans were then re-optimized with the same number of arcs using the second treatment planning system. Planning goals were invariant between the two systems. Gantry speed, dose rate modulation, MLC modulation, planmore » quality, number of monitor units (MUs), VMAT quality assurance (QA) results, and treatment delivery time were compared between the 2 systems. VMAT QA results were performed using Mapcheck2 and analyzed with gamma analysis (3mm/3% and 2mm/2%). Results: Similar plan quality was achieved with each VMAT optimization algorithm, and the difference in delivery time was minimal. Algorithm 1 achieved planning goals by highly modulating the MLC (total distance traveled by leaves (TL) = 193 cm average over control points per plan), while maintaining a relatively constant dose rate (dose-rate change <100 MU/min). Algorithm 2 involved less MLC modulation (TL = 143 cm per plan), but greater dose-rate modulation (range = 0-600 MU/min). The average number of MUs was 20% less for algorithm 2 (ratio of MUs for algorithms 2 and 1 ranged from 0.5-1). VMAT QA results were similar for all disease sites except HN plans. For HN plans, the average gamma passing rates were 88.5% (2mm/2%) and 96.9% (3mm/3%) for algorithm 1 and 97.9% (2mm/2%) and 99.6% (3mm/3%) for algorithm 2. Conclusion: Both VMAT optimization algorithms achieved comparable plan quality; however, fewer MUs were needed and QA results were more robust for Algorithm 2, which more highly modulated dose rate.« less
  • Purpose: Advanced image post-processing techniques which enhance soft-tissue contrast in CT have not been widely employed for RT planning or delivery guidance. The purpose of this work is to assess the soft-tissue contrast enhancement from non-linear contrast enhancing filters and its impact in RT. The contrast enhancement reduces patient alignment uncertainties. Methods: Non-linear contrast enhancing methods, such as Best Contrast (Siemens), amplify small differences in X-ray attenuation between two adjacent structure without significantly increasing noise. Best Contrast (BC) separates a CT into two frequency bands. The low frequency band is modified by a non-linear scaling function before recombination with themore » high frequency band. CT data collected using a CT-on-rails (Definition AS Open, Siemens) during daily CT-guided RT for 6 prostate cancer patients and an image quality phantom (The Phantom Laboratory) were analyzed. Images acquired with a standard protocol (120 kVp, 0.6 pitch, 18 mGy CTDIvol) were processed before comparison to the unaltered images. Contrast and noise were measured in the the phantom. Inter-observer variation was assessed by placing prostate contours on the 12 CT study sets, 6 enhanced and 6 unaltered, in a blinded study involving 8 observers. Results: The phantom data demonstrate that BC increased the contrast between the 1.0% supra-slice element and the background substrate by 46.5 HU while noise increased by only 2.3 HU. Thus the contrast to noise ratio increased from 1.28 to 6.71. Furthermore, the variation in centroid position of the prostate contours was decreased from 1.3±0.4 mm to 0.8±0.3 mm. Thus the CTV-to-PTV margin was reduced by 1.1 mm. The uncertainty in delineation of the prostate/rectum edge decreased by 0.5 mm. Conclusion: As demonstrated in phantom and patient scans the BC filter accentuates soft-tissue contrast. This enhancement leads to reduced inter-observer variation, which should improve RT planning and delivery. Supported by Siemens.« less
  • Purpose: We evaluated sparing of normal structures using 3-dimensional (3D) treatment planning for proton therapy of ocular melanomas. Methods and Materials: We evaluated 26 consecutive patients with choroidal melanomas on a prospective registry. Ophthalmologic work-up included fundoscopic photographs, fluorescein angiography, ultrasonographic evaluation of tumor dimensions, and magnetic resonance imaging of orbits. Three tantalum clips were placed as fiducial markers to confirm eye position for treatment. Macula, fovea, optic disc, optic nerve, ciliary body, lacrimal gland, lens, and gross tumor volume were contoured on treatment planning compute tomography scans. 3D treatment planning was performed using noncoplanar field arrangements. Patients were typicallymore » treated with 3 fields, with at least 95% of planning target volume receiving 50 GyRBE in 5 fractions. Results: Tumor stage was T1a in 10 patients, T2a in 10 patients, T2b in 1 patient, T3a in 2 patients, T3b in 1 patient, and T4a in 2 patients. Acute toxicity was mild. All patients completed treatment as planned. Mean optic nerve dose was 10.1 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Ciliary body doses were higher for nasal (mean: 11.4 GyRBE) than temporal tumors (5.8 GyRBE). Median follow-up was 31 months (range: 18-40 months). Six patients developed changes which required intraocular bevacizumab or corticosteroid therapy, but only 1 patient developed neovascular glaucoma. Five patients have since died: 1 from metastatic disease and 4 from other causes. Two patients have since required enucleation: 1 due to tumor and 1 due to neovascular glaucoma. Conclusions: 3D treatment planning can be used to obtain appropriate coverage of choroidal melanomas. This technique is feasible with relatively low doses to anterior structures, and appears to have acceptable rates of local control with low risk of enucleation. Further evaluation and follow-up is needed to determine optimal dose-volume relationships for organs at risk to decrease complications rates.« less
  • The primary aim of this study is to compare intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the radical treatment of prostate cancer using version 10.0 (v10.0) of Varian Medical Systems, RapidArc radiation oncology system. Particular focus was placed on plan quality and the implications on departmental resources. The secondary objective was to compare the results in v10.0 to the preceding version 8.6 (v8.6). Twenty prostate cancer cases were retrospectively planned using v10.0 of Varian's Eclipse and RapidArc software. Three planning techniques were performed: a 5-field IMRT, VMAT using one arc (VMAT-1A), and VMAT with twomore » arcs (VMAT-2A). Plan quality was assessed by examining homogeneity, conformity, the number of monitor units (MUs) utilized, and dose to the organs at risk (OAR). Resource implications were assessed by examining planning and treatment times. The results obtained using v10.0 were also compared to those previously reported by our group for v8.6. In v10.0, each technique was able to produce a dose distribution that achieved the departmental planning guidelines. The IMRT plans were produced faster than VMAT plans and displayed improved homogeneity. The VMAT plans provided better conformity to the target volume, improved dose to the OAR, and required fewer MUs. Treatments using VMAT-1A were significantly faster than both IMRT and VMAT-2A. Comparison between versions 8.6 and 10.0 revealed that in the newer version, VMAT planning was significantly faster and the quality of the VMAT dose distributions produced were of a better quality. VMAT (v10.0) using one or two arcs provides an acceptable alternative to IMRT for the treatment of prostate cancer. VMAT-1A has the greatest impact on reducing treatment time.« less