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

Title: SU-F-T-519: Is Geometry Based Setup Sufficient for All of the Head and Neck Treatment Cases?: A Feasibility Study Towards the Dose Based Setup

Abstract

Purpose: This study compares the geometric-based setup (GBS) which is currently used in the clinic to a novel concept of dose-based setup (DBS) of head and neck (H&N) patients using cone beam CT (CBCT) of the day; and evaluates the clinical advantages. Methods: Ten H&N patients who underwent re-simulation and re-plan due to noticeable anatomic changes during the course of the treatments were retrospectively reviewed on dosimetric changes in the assumption of no plan modification was performed. RayStation planning system (RaySearch Laboratories AB, Sweden) was used to match (ROI fusion module) between prescribed isodoseline (IDL) in the CBCT imported along with ROIs from re-planned CT and the IDL of original plan (Dose-based setup: DBS). Then, the CBCT plan based on daily setup using the GBS (previously used for a patient) and the DBS CBCT plan recalculated in RayStation compared against the original CT-sim plan. Results: Most of patients’ tumor coverage and OAR doses got generally worsen when the CBCT plans were compared with original CT-sim plan with GBS. However, when DBS intervened, the OAR dose and tumor coverage was better than the GBS. For example, one of patients’ daily average doses of right parotid and oral cavity increased to 26%more » and 36%, respectively from the original plan to the GBS planning. However, it only increased by 13% and 24%, respectively with DBS. GTV D95 coverage also decreased by 16% with GBS, but only 2% decreased with DBS. Conclusion: DBS method is superior to GBS to prevent any abrupt dose changes to OARs as well as PTV/CTV or GTV at least for some H&N cases. Since it is not known when the DBS is beneficial to the GBS, a system which enables the on-line DBS may be helpful for better treatment of H&N.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649105
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; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; GEOMETRY; HEAD; NECK; ORAL CAVITY; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Lee, S, Chen, S, Zhang, B, Xu, H, Prado, K, D’Souza, W, and Yi, B. SU-F-T-519: Is Geometry Based Setup Sufficient for All of the Head and Neck Treatment Cases?: A Feasibility Study Towards the Dose Based Setup. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956704.
Lee, S, Chen, S, Zhang, B, Xu, H, Prado, K, D’Souza, W, & Yi, B. SU-F-T-519: Is Geometry Based Setup Sufficient for All of the Head and Neck Treatment Cases?: A Feasibility Study Towards the Dose Based Setup. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956704.
Lee, S, Chen, S, Zhang, B, Xu, H, Prado, K, D’Souza, W, and Yi, B. Wed . "SU-F-T-519: Is Geometry Based Setup Sufficient for All of the Head and Neck Treatment Cases?: A Feasibility Study Towards the Dose Based Setup". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956704.
@article{osti_22649105,
title = {SU-F-T-519: Is Geometry Based Setup Sufficient for All of the Head and Neck Treatment Cases?: A Feasibility Study Towards the Dose Based Setup},
author = {Lee, S and Chen, S and Zhang, B and Xu, H and Prado, K and D’Souza, W and Yi, B},
abstractNote = {Purpose: This study compares the geometric-based setup (GBS) which is currently used in the clinic to a novel concept of dose-based setup (DBS) of head and neck (H&N) patients using cone beam CT (CBCT) of the day; and evaluates the clinical advantages. Methods: Ten H&N patients who underwent re-simulation and re-plan due to noticeable anatomic changes during the course of the treatments were retrospectively reviewed on dosimetric changes in the assumption of no plan modification was performed. RayStation planning system (RaySearch Laboratories AB, Sweden) was used to match (ROI fusion module) between prescribed isodoseline (IDL) in the CBCT imported along with ROIs from re-planned CT and the IDL of original plan (Dose-based setup: DBS). Then, the CBCT plan based on daily setup using the GBS (previously used for a patient) and the DBS CBCT plan recalculated in RayStation compared against the original CT-sim plan. Results: Most of patients’ tumor coverage and OAR doses got generally worsen when the CBCT plans were compared with original CT-sim plan with GBS. However, when DBS intervened, the OAR dose and tumor coverage was better than the GBS. For example, one of patients’ daily average doses of right parotid and oral cavity increased to 26% and 36%, respectively from the original plan to the GBS planning. However, it only increased by 13% and 24%, respectively with DBS. GTV D95 coverage also decreased by 16% with GBS, but only 2% decreased with DBS. Conclusion: DBS method is superior to GBS to prevent any abrupt dose changes to OARs as well as PTV/CTV or GTV at least for some H&N cases. Since it is not known when the DBS is beneficial to the GBS, a system which enables the on-line DBS may be helpful for better treatment of H&N.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956704},
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: With the implementation of Cone-beam Computed-Tomography (CBCT) in proton treatment, we introduces a quick and effective tool to verify the patient’s daily setup and geometry changes based on the Water-Equivalent-Thickness Projection-Image(WETPI) from individual beam angle. Methods: A bilateral head neck cancer(HNC) patient previously treated via VMAT was used in this study. The patient received 35 daily CBCT during the whole treatment and there is no significant weight change. The CT numbers of daily CBCTs were corrected by mapping the CT numbers from simulation CT via Deformable Image Registration(DIR). IMPT plan was generated using 4-field IMPT robust optimization (3.5% rangemore » and 3mm setup uncertainties) with beam angle 60, 135, 300, 225 degree. WETPI within CTV through all beam directions were calculated. 3%/3mm gamma index(GI) were used to provide a quantitative comparison between initial sim-CT and mapped daily CBCT. To simulate an extreme case where human error is involved, a couch bar was manually inserted in front of beam angle 225 degree of one CBCT. WETPI was compared in this scenario. Results: The average of GI passing rate of this patient from different beam angles throughout the treatment course is 91.5 ± 8.6. In the cases with low passing rate, it was found that the difference between shoulder and neck angle as well as the head rest often causes major deviation. This indicates that the most challenge in treating HNC is the setup around neck area. In the extreme case where a couch bar is accidently inserted in the beam line, GI passing rate drops to 52 from 95. Conclusion: WETPI and quantitative gamma analysis give clinicians, therapists and physicists a quick feedback of the patient’s setup accuracy or geometry changes. The tool could effectively avoid some human errors. Furthermore, this tool could be used potentially as an initial signal to trigger plan adaptation.« less
  • 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: 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: 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: RTOG 1005 requires density correction in the dose calculation of breast cancer radiation treatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of density correction on the dose calculation. Methods: Eight cases were studied, which were planned on an XiO treatment planning system with pixel-by-pixel density correction using a superposition algorithm, following RTOG 1005 protocol requirements. Four were protocol Arm 1 (standard whole breast irradiation with sequential boost) cases and four were Arm 2 (hypofractionated whole breast irradiation with concurrent boost) cases. The plans were recalculated with the same monitor units without density correction. Dose calculations withmore » and without density correction were compared. Results: Results of Arm 1 and Arm 2 cases showed similar trends in the comparison. The average differences between the calculations with and without density correction (difference = Without - With) among all the cases were: -0.82 Gy (range: -2.65∼−0.18 Gy) in breast PTV Eval D95, −0.75 Gy (range: −1.23∼0.26 Gy) in breast PTV Eval D90, −1.00 Gy (range: −2.46∼−0.29 Gy) in lumpectomy PTV Eval D95, −0.78 Gy (range: −1.30∼0.11 Gy) in lumpectomy PTV Eval D90, −0.43% (range: −0.95∼−0.14%) in ipsilateral lung V20, −0.81% (range: −1.62∼−0.26%) in V16, −1.95% (range: −4.13∼−0.84%) in V10, −2.64% (−5.55∼−1.04%) in V8, −4.19% (range: −6.92∼−1.81%) in V5, and −4.95% (range: −7.49∼−2.01%) in V4, respectively. The differences in other normal tissues were minimal. Conclusion: The effect of density correction was observed in breast target doses (an average increase of ∼1 Gy in D95 and D90, compared to the calculation without density correction) and exposed ipsilateral lung volumes in low dose region (average increases of ∼4% and ∼5% in V5 and V4, respectively)« less