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

Title: SU-F-T-453: Improved Head and Neck SBRT Treatment Planning Using PlanIQ

Abstract

Purpose: Treatment planning for Head and Neck(HN) re-irradiation is a challenge because of ablative doses to target volume and strict critical structure constraints. PlanIQ(Sun Nuclear Corporation) can assess the feasibility of clinical goals and quantitatively measure plan quality. Here, we assess whether incorporation of PlanIQ in our SBRT treatment planning process can improve plan quality and planning efficiency. Methods: From 2013–2015, 35 patients (29 retrospective, 6 prospective) with recurrent HN tumors were treated with SBRT using VMAT treatment plans. The median prescription dose was 45 Gy in 5 fractions. We retrospectively reviewed the treatment plans and physician directives of our first 29 patients and generated score functions of the dosimetric goals used in our practice and obtained a baseline histogram. We then re-optimized 12 plans that had potential to further reduce organs-at-risk (OAR) doses according to PlanIQ feasibility DVH and plan quality analysis and compared them to the original plans. We applied our new PlanIQ-assisted planning process for our 6 most recently treated patients and evaluated the plan quality and planning efficiency. Results: The mean plan quality metric(PQM) and feasibility adjusted PQM(APQM) scores of our initial 29 treatment plans were 77.1±13.1 and 88.7±11.9, respectively (0–100 scale). The PQM and APQMmore » scores for the 12 optimized plans improved from 75.9±11.0 and 85.1±10.2 to 80.7±9.3 and 90.2±8.0, respectively (p<0.005). Using our newly developed PlanIQ-assisted planning process, the PQM and APQM scores for the 6 most recently treated patients were 93.6±6.5 and 99.1±0.6, respectively. The planning goals were more straightforward to minimize OAR doses during optimization, thus less planning and revision time were used than before. Conclusion: PlanIQ has the potential to provide achievable planning goals and also improve plan quality and planning efficiency.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649044
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; EFFICIENCY; HEAD; NECK; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Wang, H, Wang, C, Phan, J, Tung, S, and Chi, P. SU-F-T-453: Improved Head and Neck SBRT Treatment Planning Using PlanIQ. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956638.
Wang, H, Wang, C, Phan, J, Tung, S, & Chi, P. SU-F-T-453: Improved Head and Neck SBRT Treatment Planning Using PlanIQ. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956638.
Wang, H, Wang, C, Phan, J, Tung, S, and Chi, P. Wed . "SU-F-T-453: Improved Head and Neck SBRT Treatment Planning Using PlanIQ". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956638.
@article{osti_22649044,
title = {SU-F-T-453: Improved Head and Neck SBRT Treatment Planning Using PlanIQ},
author = {Wang, H and Wang, C and Phan, J and Tung, S and Chi, P},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Treatment planning for Head and Neck(HN) re-irradiation is a challenge because of ablative doses to target volume and strict critical structure constraints. PlanIQ(Sun Nuclear Corporation) can assess the feasibility of clinical goals and quantitatively measure plan quality. Here, we assess whether incorporation of PlanIQ in our SBRT treatment planning process can improve plan quality and planning efficiency. Methods: From 2013–2015, 35 patients (29 retrospective, 6 prospective) with recurrent HN tumors were treated with SBRT using VMAT treatment plans. The median prescription dose was 45 Gy in 5 fractions. We retrospectively reviewed the treatment plans and physician directives of our first 29 patients and generated score functions of the dosimetric goals used in our practice and obtained a baseline histogram. We then re-optimized 12 plans that had potential to further reduce organs-at-risk (OAR) doses according to PlanIQ feasibility DVH and plan quality analysis and compared them to the original plans. We applied our new PlanIQ-assisted planning process for our 6 most recently treated patients and evaluated the plan quality and planning efficiency. Results: The mean plan quality metric(PQM) and feasibility adjusted PQM(APQM) scores of our initial 29 treatment plans were 77.1±13.1 and 88.7±11.9, respectively (0–100 scale). The PQM and APQM scores for the 12 optimized plans improved from 75.9±11.0 and 85.1±10.2 to 80.7±9.3 and 90.2±8.0, respectively (p<0.005). Using our newly developed PlanIQ-assisted planning process, the PQM and APQM scores for the 6 most recently treated patients were 93.6±6.5 and 99.1±0.6, respectively. The planning goals were more straightforward to minimize OAR doses during optimization, thus less planning and revision time were used than before. Conclusion: PlanIQ has the potential to provide achievable planning goals and also improve plan quality and planning efficiency.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956638},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: We performed a retrospective dosimetric comparison study between the robustness optimized Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (RO-IMPT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and the non-coplanar 4? intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). These methods represent the most advanced radiation treatment methods clinically available. We compare their dosimetric performance for head and neck cancer treatments with special focus on the OAR sparing near the tumor volumes. Methods: A total of 11 head and neck cases, which include 10 recurrent cases and one bilateral case, were selected for the study. Different dose levels were prescribed to tumor target depending on disease and location. Threemore » treatment plans were created on commercial TPS systems for a novel noncoplanar 4π method (20 beams), VMAT, and RO-IMPT technique (maximum 4 fields). The maximum patient positioning error was set to 3 mm and the maximum proton range uncertainty was set to 3% for the robustness optimization. Line dose profiles were investigated for OARs close to tumor volumes. Results: All three techniques achieved 98% coverage of the CTV target and most photon plans had less than 110% of the hot spots. The RO-IMPT plans show superior tumor dose homogeneity than 4? and VMAT plans. Although RO-IMPT has greater R50 dose spillage to the surrounding normal tissue than 4π and VMAT, the RO-IMPT plans demonstrate better or comparable OAR (parotid, mandible, carotid, oral cavity, pharynx, and etc.) sparing for structures closely abutting tumor targets. Conclusion: The RO-IMPT’s ability of OAR sparing is benchmarked against the C-arm linac based non-coplanar 4π technique and the standard VMAT method. RO-IMPT consistently shows better or comparable OAR sparing even for tissue structures closely abutting treatment target volume. RO-IMPT further reduces treatment uncertainty associated with proton therapy and delivers robust treatment plans to both unilateral and bilateral head and neck cancer patients with desirable treatment time.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the potential benefits of robust optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy(IMPT) treatment planning to account for inter-fractional variation for Head Neck Cancer(HNC). Methods: One patient with bilateral HNC previous treated at our institution was used in this study. Ten daily CBCTs were selected. The CT numbers of the CBCTs were corrected by mapping the CT numbers from simulation CT via Deformable Image Registration. The planning target volumes(PTVs) were defined by a 3mm expansion from clinical target volumes(CTVs). The prescription was 70Gy, 54Gy to CTV1, CTV2, and PTV1, PTV2 for robust optimized(RO) and conventionally optimized(CO) plans respectively. Bothmore » techniques were generated by RayStation with the same beam angles: two anterior oblique and two posterior oblique angles. The similar dose constraints were used to achieve 99% of CTV1 received 100% prescription dose while kept the hotspots less than 110% of the prescription. In order to evaluate the dosimetric result through the course of treatment, the contours were deformed from simulation CT to daily CBCTs, modified, and approved by a radiation oncologist. The initial plan on the simulation CT was re-replayed on the daily CBCTs followed the bony alignment. The target coverage was evaluated using the daily doses and the cumulative dose. Results: Eight of 10 daily deliveries with using RO plan achieved at least 95% prescription dose to CTV1 and CTV2, while still kept maximum hotspot less than 112% of prescription compared with only one of 10 for the CO plan to achieve the same standards. For the cumulative doses, the target coverage for both RO and CO plans was quite similar, which was due to the compensation of cold and hot spots. Conclusion: Robust optimization can be effectively applied to compensate for target dose deficit caused by inter-fractional target geometric variation in IMPT treatment planning.« less
  • Purpose: We aim to evaluate a new commercial dose mimicking inverse-planning application that was designed to provide cross-platform treatment planning, for its dosimetric quality and efficiency. The clinical benefit of this application allows patients treated on O-shaped linac to receive an equivalent plan on conventional L-shaped linac as needed for workflow or machine downtime. Methods: The dose mimicking optimization process seeks to create a similar DVH of an O-shaped linac-based plans with an alternative treatment technique (IMRT or VMAT), by maintaining target conformity, and penalizing dose falloff outside the target. Ten head and neck (HN) helical delivery plans, including simplemore » and complex cases were selected for re-planning with the dose mimicking application. All plans were generated for a 6 MV beam model, using 7-field/ 9-field IMRT and VMAT techniques. PTV coverage (D1, D99 and homogeneity index [HI]), and OARs avoidance (Dmean / Dmax) were compared. Results: The resulting dose mimicked HN plans achieved acceptable PTV coverage for HI (VMAT 7.0±2.3, 7-fld 7.3±2.4, and 9-fld 7.0±2.4), D99 (98.0%±0.7%, 97.8%±0.7%, and 98.0%±0.7%), as well as D1 (106.4%±2.1%, 106.5%±2.2%, and 106.4%±2.1%), respectively. The OAR dose discrepancy varied: brainstem (2% to 4%), cord (3% to 6%), esophagus (−4% to −8%), larynx (−4% to 2%), and parotid (4% to 14%). Mimicked plans would typically be needed for 1–5 fractions of a treatment course, and we estimate <1% variance would be introduced in target coverage while maintaining comparable low dose to OARs. All mimicked plans were approved by independent physician and passed patient specific QA within our established tolerance. Conclusion: Dose mimicked plans provide a practical alternative for responding to clinical workflow issues, and provide reliability for patient treatment. The quality of dose mimicking for HN patients highly depends on the delivery technique, field numbers and angles, as well as user selection of structures.« less
  • Purpose: Due to the high dose per fraction in SBRT, dose conformity and dose fall-off are critical. In patients with cervical cancer, rapid dose fall-off is particularly important to limit dose to the nearby rectum, small bowel, and bladder. This study compares the target volume dose fall-off for two radiation delivery techniques, fixed-field IMRT & VMAT, using non-coplanar beam geometries. Further comparisons are made between 6 and 10MV photon beam energies. Methods: Eleven (n=11) patients were planned in Pinnacle3 v9.10 with a NovalisTx (HD120 MLC) machine model using 6 and 10 MV photons. The following three techniques were used: (1)more » IMRT (10 non-coplanar beams) (2) Dual, coplanar 360° VMAT arcs (4° spacing), and (3) Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs (1 full arc and dual partial arcs). All plans were normalized such that 98% of the PTV received at least 28Gy/4Fx. Dose was calculated using a 2.0mm isotropic dose grid. To assess dose fall-off, twenty concentric 2mm thick rings were created around the PTV. The maximum dose in each ring was recorded and the data was fitted to model dose fall-off. A separate analysis was performed by separating target volumes into small (0–50cc), medium (51–80cc), and large (81–110cc). Results: Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs showed the best dose fall-off for all patients evaluated. All fitted regressions had an R{sup 2}≥0.99. At 10mm from the PTV edge, 10 MV VMAT3-arc had an absolute improvement in dose fall-off of 3.8% and 6.9% over IMRT and VMAT2-arc, respectively. At 30mm, 10 MV VMAT3-arc had an absolute improvement of 12.0% and 7.0% over IMRT and VMAT2-arc, respectively. Faster dose fall-off was observed for small volumes as opposed to medium and large ones—9.6% at 20mm. Conclusion: Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs offer the sharpest dose fall-off for cervical SBRT plans. This improvement is most pronounced when treating smaller target volumes.« less
  • Purpose: To commission the Monaco Treatment Planning System for the Novalis Tx machine. Methods: The commissioning of Monte-Carlo (MC), Collapsed Cone (CC) and electron Monte-Carlo (eMC) beam models was performed through a series of measurements and calculations in medium and in water. In medium measurements relied Octavius 4D QA system with the 1000 SRS detector array for field sizes less than 4 cm × 4 cm and the 1500 detector array for larger field sizes. Heterogeneity corrections were validated using a custom built phantom. Prior to clinical implementation, an end to end testing of a Prostate and H&N VMAT plansmore » was performed. Results: Using a 0.5% uncertainty and 2 mm grid sizes, Tables I and II summarize the MC validation at 6 MV and 18 MV in both medium and water. Tables III and IV show similar comparisons for CC. Using the custom heterogeneity phantom setup of Figure 1 and IGRT guidance summarized in Figure 2, Table V lists the percent pass rate for a 2%, 2 mm gamma criteria at 6 and 18 MV for both MC and CC. The relationship between MC calculations settings of uncertainty and grid size and the gamma passing rate for a prostate and H&N case is shown in Table VI. Table VII lists the results of the eMC calculations compared to measured data for clinically available applicators and Table VIII for small field cutouts. Conclusion: MU calculations using MC are highly sensitive to uncertainty and grid size settings. The difference can be of the order of several per cents. MC is superior to CC for small fields and when using heterogeneity corrections, regardless of field size, making it more suitable for SRS, SBRT and VMAT deliveries. eMC showed good agreement with measurements down to 2 cm − 2 cm field size.« less