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

Title: SU-F-T-447: The Impact of Treatment Planning Methods On RapidPlan Modeling for Rectum Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the dose volume histogram (DVH) prediction varieties based on intensity modulate radiotherapy (IMRT) plan or volume arc modulate radiotherapy (VMAT) plan models on the RapidPlan. Methods: Two DVH prediction models were generated in this study, including an IMRT model trained from 83 IMRT rectum plans and a VMAT model trained from 60 VMAT rectum plans. In the internal validation, 20 plans from each training database were selected to verify the clinical feasibility of the model. Then, 10 IMRT plans (PIMRT-by-IMRT-model) generated from IMRT model and 10 IMRT plans generated from VMAT model (PIMRT-by-VMAT-model) were compared on the dose to organs at risk (OAR), which included bladder, left and right femoral heads. The similar comparison was also performed on the VMAT plans generated from IMRT model (PVMAT-by-IMRT-model) and VMAT plans generated from VMAT (PVMAT-by-VMAT-model) model. Results: For the internal validation, all plans from IMRT or VMAT model shows significantly improvement on OAR sparing compared with the corresponded clinical ones. Compared to the PIMRT-by-VMAT-model, the PIMRT-by-IMRT-model has a reduction of 6.90±3.87%(p<0.001) on V40 6.63±3.62%(p<0.001) on V45 and 4.74±2.26%(p<0.001) on V50 in bladder; and a mean dose reduction of 2.12±1.75Gy(p=0.004) and 2.84±1.53Gy(p<0.001) in right and left femoral head, respectively. Theremore » was no significant difference on OAR sparing between PVMAT-by-IMRT-model and PVMAT-by-VMAT-model. Conclusion: The IMRT model for the rectal cancer in the RapidPlan can be applied to for VMAT planning. However, the VMAT model is not suggested to use in the IMRT planning. Cautions should be taken that the planning model based on some technique may not feasible to other planning techniques.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, Shanghai (China)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649038
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; NEOPLASMS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; SIMULATION; TRAINING

Citation Formats

Lu, S, Peng, J, Li, K, Wang, J, and Hu, W. SU-F-T-447: The Impact of Treatment Planning Methods On RapidPlan Modeling for Rectum Cancer. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956632.
Lu, S, Peng, J, Li, K, Wang, J, & Hu, W. SU-F-T-447: The Impact of Treatment Planning Methods On RapidPlan Modeling for Rectum Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956632.
Lu, S, Peng, J, Li, K, Wang, J, and Hu, W. 2016. "SU-F-T-447: The Impact of Treatment Planning Methods On RapidPlan Modeling for Rectum Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956632.
@article{osti_22649038,
title = {SU-F-T-447: The Impact of Treatment Planning Methods On RapidPlan Modeling for Rectum Cancer},
author = {Lu, S and Peng, J and Li, K and Wang, J and Hu, W},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To investigate the dose volume histogram (DVH) prediction varieties based on intensity modulate radiotherapy (IMRT) plan or volume arc modulate radiotherapy (VMAT) plan models on the RapidPlan. Methods: Two DVH prediction models were generated in this study, including an IMRT model trained from 83 IMRT rectum plans and a VMAT model trained from 60 VMAT rectum plans. In the internal validation, 20 plans from each training database were selected to verify the clinical feasibility of the model. Then, 10 IMRT plans (PIMRT-by-IMRT-model) generated from IMRT model and 10 IMRT plans generated from VMAT model (PIMRT-by-VMAT-model) were compared on the dose to organs at risk (OAR), which included bladder, left and right femoral heads. The similar comparison was also performed on the VMAT plans generated from IMRT model (PVMAT-by-IMRT-model) and VMAT plans generated from VMAT (PVMAT-by-VMAT-model) model. Results: For the internal validation, all plans from IMRT or VMAT model shows significantly improvement on OAR sparing compared with the corresponded clinical ones. Compared to the PIMRT-by-VMAT-model, the PIMRT-by-IMRT-model has a reduction of 6.90±3.87%(p<0.001) on V40 6.63±3.62%(p<0.001) on V45 and 4.74±2.26%(p<0.001) on V50 in bladder; and a mean dose reduction of 2.12±1.75Gy(p=0.004) and 2.84±1.53Gy(p<0.001) in right and left femoral head, respectively. There was no significant difference on OAR sparing between PVMAT-by-IMRT-model and PVMAT-by-VMAT-model. Conclusion: The IMRT model for the rectal cancer in the RapidPlan can be applied to for VMAT planning. However, the VMAT model is not suggested to use in the IMRT planning. Cautions should be taken that the planning model based on some technique may not feasible to other planning techniques.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956632},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • In this study, we analyzed planning organ at risk volume (PRV) for the rectum using a series of cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) acquired during the treatment of prostate cancer and evaluated the dosimetric effect of different PRV definitions. Overall, 21 patients with prostate cancer were treated radically with 78 Gy in 39 fractions had in total 418 CBCTs, each acquired at the end of the first 5 fractions and then every alternate fraction. The PRV was generated from the Boolean sum volume of the rectum obtained from first 5 fractions (PRV-CBCT-5) and from all CBCTs (PRV-CBCT-All). The PRV marginmore » was compared at the superior, middle, and inferior slices of the contoured rectum to compare PRV-CBCT-5 and PRV-CBCT-All. We also compared the dose received by the planned rectum (Rectum-computed tomography [CT]), PRV-CBCT-5, PRV-CBCT-All, and average rectum (CBCT-AV-dose-volume histogram [DVH]) at critical dose levels. The average measured rectal volume for all 21 patients for Rectum-CT, PRV-CBCT-5, and PRV-CBCT-All was 44.3 ± 15.0, 92.8 ± 40.40, and 121.5 ± 36.7 cm{sup 3}, respectively. For PRV-CBCT-All, the mean ± standard deviation displacement in the anterior, posterior, right, and left lateral directions in centimeters was 2.1 ± 1.1, 0.9 ± 0.5, 0.9 ± 0.8, and 1.1 ± 0.7 for the superior rectum; 0.8 ± 0.5, 1.1 ± 0.5, 1.0 ± 0.5, and 1.0 ± 0.5 for the middle rectum; and 0.3 ± 0.3; 0.9 ± 0.5; 0.4 ± 0.2, and 0.5 ± 0.3 for the inferior rectum, respectively. The first 5 CBCTs did not predict the PRV for individual patients. Our study shows that the PRV margin is different for superior, middle, and the inferior parts of the rectum, it is wider superiorly and narrower inferiorly. A uniform PRV margin does not represent the actual rectal variations during treatment for all treatment fractions. The large variation in interpatient rectal size implies a potential role for adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer.« less
  • Several reports have dealt with correlations of late rectal toxicity with rectal dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for high dose levels. There are 2 techniques to assess rectal volume for reception of a specific dose: relative-DVH (R-DVH, %) that indicates relative volume for a vertical axis, and absolute-DVH (A-DVH, cc) with its vertical axis showing absolute volume of the rectum. The parameters of DVH vary depending on the rectum delineation method, but the literature does not present any standardization of such methods. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different delineation methods on rectal DVHs. The enrollmentmore » for this study comprised 28 patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, who had undergone intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with the prescription dose of 78 Gy. The rectum was contoured with 4 different methods using 2 lengths, short (Sh) and long (Lg), and 2 cross sections, rectum (Rec) and rectal wall (Rw). Sh means the length from 1 cm above the seminal vesicles to 1 cm below the prostate and Lg the length from the rectosigmoid junction to the anus. Rec represents the entire rectal volume including the rectal contents and Rw the rectal volume of the area with a wall thickness of 4 mm. We compared dose-volume parameters by using 4 rectal contour methods for the same plan with the R-DVHs as well as the A-DVHs. For the high dose levels, the R-DVH parameters varied widely. The mean of V{sub 70} for Sh-Rw was the highest (19.4%) and nearly twice as high as that for Lg-Rec (10.4%). On the contrary, only small variations were observed in the A-DVH parameters (4.3, 4.3, 5.5, and 5.5 cc for Sh-Rw, Lg-Rw, Sh-Rec, and Lg-Rec, respectively). As for R-DVHs, the parameters of V{sub 70} varied depending on the rectal lengths (Sh-Rec vs Lg-Rec: R = 0.76; Sh-Rw vs Lg-Rw: R = 0.85) and cross sections (Sh-Rec vs Sh-Rw: R = 0.49; Lg-Rec vs Lg-Rw: R = 0.65). For A-DVHs, however, the parameters of Sh rectal A-DVHs hardly changed regardless of differences in rectal length at all dose levels. Moreover, at high dose levels (V{sub 70}), the parameters of A-DVHs showed less dependence on rectal cross sections (Sh-Rec vs Sh-Rw: R = 0.66; Lg-Rec vs Lg-Rw: R = 0.59). This study showed that A-DVHs were less dependent on the delineation methods than R-DVHs, especially for evaluating the rectal dose at higher dose levels. It can therefore be assumed that, in addition to R-DVHs, A-DVHs can be used for evaluating rectal toxicity.« less
  • Purpose: RapidPlan uses a library consisting of expert plans from different patients to create a model that can predict achievable dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for new patients. The goal of this study is to investigate the impacts of model library population (plan numbers) on the DVH prediction for rectal cancer patients treated with volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) Methods: Ninety clinically accepted rectal cancer patients’ VMAT plans were selected to establish 3 models, named as Model30, Model60 and Model90, with 30,60, and 90 plans in the model training. All plans had sufficient target coverage and bladder and femora sparings. Additional 10 patients weremore » enrolled to test the DVH prediction differences with these 3 models. The predicted DVHs from these 3 models were compared and analyzed. Results: Predicted V40 (Vx, percent of volume that received x Gy for the organs at risk) and Dmean (mean dose, cGy) of the bladder were 39.84±13.38 and 2029.4±141.6 for the Model30,37.52±16.00 and 2012.5±152.2 for the Model60, and 36.33±18.35 and 2066.5±174.3 for the Model90. Predicted V30 and Dmean of the left femur were 23.33±9.96 and 1443.3±114.5 for the Model30, 21.83±5.75 and 1436.6±61.9 for the Model60, and 20.31±4.6 and 1415.0±52.4 for the Model90.There were no significant differences among the 3 models for the bladder and left femur predictions. Predicted V40 and Dmean of the right femur were 19.86±10.00 and 1403.6±115.6 (Model30),18.97±6.19 and 1401.9±68.78 (Model60), and 21.08±7.82 and 1424.0±85.3 (Model90). Although a slight lower DVH prediction of the right femur was found on the Model60, the mean differences for V30 and mean dose were less than 2% and 1%, respectively. Conclusion: There were no significant differences among Model30, Model60 and Model90 for predicting DVHs on rectal patients treated with VMAT. The impact of plan numbers for model library might be limited for cancers with similar target shape.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate prospectively how positron emission tomography (PET) information changes treatment plans for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving or not receiving elective nodal irradiation (ENI). Methods and Materials: One hundred consecutive patients referred for curative radiotherapy were included in the study. Treatment plans were carried out with CT data sets only. For stage III patients, mediastinal ENI was planned. Then, patients underwent PET-CT for diagnostic/planning purposes. PET/CT was fused with the CT data for final planning. New targets were delineated. For stage III patients with minimal N disease (N0-N1, single N2), the ENI was omitted in the newmore » plans. Patients were treated according to the PET-based volumes and plans. The gross tumor volume (GTV)/planning tumor volume (PTV) and doses for critical structures were compared for both data sets. The doses for areas of potential geographical misses derived with the CT data set alone were compared in patients with and without initially planned ENI. Results: In the 75 patients for whom the decision about curative radiotherapy was maintained after PET/CT, there would have been 20 cases (27%) with potential geographical misses by using the CT data set alone. Among them, 13 patients would receive ENI; of those patients, only 2 patients had the PET-based PTV covered by 90% isodose by using the plans based on CT alone, and the mean of the minimum dose within the missed GTV was 55% of the prescribed dose, while for 7 patients without ENI, it was 10% (p = 0.006). The lung, heart, and esophageal doses were significantly lower for plans with ENI omission than for plans with ENI use based on CT alone. Conclusions: PET/CT should be incorporated in the planning of radiotherapy for NSCLC, even in the setting of ENI. However, if PET/CT is unavailable, ENI may to some extent compensate for an inadequate dose coverage resulting from diagnostic uncertainties.« less
  • Purpose: To retrospectively test the hypothesis that rectal distension on the planning computed tomography (CT) scan is associated with an increased risk of biochemical and local failure among patients irradiated for prostate carcinoma when a daily repositioning technique based on direct prostate-organ localization is not used. Methods and Materials: This study included 127 patients who received definitive three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer to a total dose of 78 Gy at University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Rectal distension was assessed by calculation of the average cross-sectional rectal area (CSA; defined as the rectal volume divided by length) andmore » measuring three rectal diameters on the planning CT. The impact of rectal distension on biochemical control, 2-year prostate biopsy results, and incidence of Grade 2 or greater late rectal bleeding was assessed. Results: The incidence of biochemical failure was significantly higher among patients with distended rectums (CSA >11.2 cm{sup 2}) on the planning CT scan (p 0.0009, log-rank test). Multivariate analysis indicates that rectal distension and high-risk disease are independent risk factors for biochemical failure, with hazard ratios of 3.89 (95% C.I. 1.58 to 9.56, p = 0.003) and 2.45 (95% C.I. 1.18 to 5.08, p = 0.016), respectively. The probability of residual tumor without evidence of radiation treatment (as scored by the pathologist) increased significantly with rectal distension (p = 0.010, logistic analysis), and a lower incidence of Grade 2 or greater late rectal bleeding within 2 years was simultaneously observed with higher CSA values (p = 0.031, logistic analysis). Conclusions: We found strong evidence that rectal distension on the treatment-planning CT scan decreased the probability of biochemical control, local control, and rectal toxicity in patients who were treated without daily image-guided prostate localization, presumably because of geographic misses. Therefore, an empty rectum is warranted at the time of simulation. These results also emphasize the need for image-guided radiotherapy to improve local control in irradiating prostate cancer.« less