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. 2016. "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 = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • 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
  • From 1978 to the end of 1980, 179 patients with advanced head and neck tumors were accrued in a multicenter pilot study of the EORTC Radiotherapy Group, investigating the feasibility of high dose multiple daily fractionation (MDF) and its combination with misonidazole. The irradiation scheme consisted of three daily fractions of 1.6 Gy (four hour intervals) to a total dose of 48 Gy in two weeks, followed 3 to 4 weeks later by a boost to a total of about 70 Gy in 6 to 7 weeks. Misonidazole was given in daily doses of 1 g/m/sup 2/ (total 13 ormore » 14 g/m/sup 2/) to 53 patients, thus sensitizing every radiation session. All patients had large head and neck tumors, with a poor prognosis. Acute reactions were well tolerated. Skin reactions were very moderate: mucosal reaction started at day 10 to 12. Tumor regression was very impressive, so that palliation was obtained quickly. Nine patients died from treatment related causes. It is difficult to assess local control at this time, but at the time of analysis (August 1981), the actuarial control rate was 48% at 20 months, with misonidazole 57%. This difference, however, is not statistically significant. Survival of the total group is 31% at 20 months. In these patients with a heavy tumor burden the early results were considered a success by all participants. For patients with sufficient follow-up, late reactions can be evaluated. Some edema and fibrosis is seen, but did not exceed a degree which could be expected with single daily fractionation to the same dose. This study demonstrates the possibility of giving highly concentrated treatments to total doses equal to those used in conventional fractionation.« less
  • Purpose: To use Cone Beam CT scans obtained just prior to treatments of head and neck cancer patients to measure the setup error and cumulative dose uncertainty of the cochlea. Methods: Data from 10 head and neck patients with 10 planning CTs and 52 Cone Beam CTs taken at time of treatment were used in this study. Patients were treated with conventional fractionation using an IMRT dose painting technique, most with 33 fractions. Weekly radiographic imaging was used to correct the patient setup. The authors used rigid registration of the planning CT and Cone Beam CT scans to find themore » translational and rotational setup errors, and the spatial setup errors of the cochlea. The planning CT was rotated and translated such that the cochlea positions match those seen in the cone beam scans, cochlea doses were recalculated and fractional doses accumulated. Uncertainties in the positions and cumulative doses of the cochlea were calculated with and without setup adjustments from radiographic imaging. Results: The mean setup error of the cochlea was 0.04 ± 0.33 or 0.06 ± 0.43 cm for RL, 0.09 ± 0.27 or 0.07 ± 0.48 cm for AP, and 0.00 ± 0.21 or −0.24 ± 0.45 cm for SI with and without radiographic imaging, respectively. Setup with radiographic imaging reduced the standard deviation of the setup error by roughly 1–2 mm. The uncertainty of the cochlea dose depends on the treatment plan and the relative positions of the cochlea and target volumes. Combining results for the left and right cochlea, the authors found the accumulated uncertainty of the cochlea dose per fraction was 4.82 (0.39–16.8) cGy, or 10.1 (0.8–32.4) cGy, with and without radiographic imaging, respectively; the percentage uncertainties relative to the planned doses were 4.32% (0.28%–9.06%) and 10.2% (0.7%–63.6%), respectively. Conclusions: Patient setup error introduces uncertainty in the position of the cochlea during radiation treatment. With the assistance of radiographic imaging during setup, the standard deviation of setup error reduced by 31%, 42%, and 54% in RL, AP, and SI direction, respectively, and consequently, the uncertainty of the mean dose to cochlea reduced more than 50%. The authors estimate that the effects of these uncertainties on the probability of hearing loss for an individual patient could be as large as 10%.« less
  • Purpose: To use Cone Beam CT scans obtained just prior to treatments of head and neck cancer patients to measure the setup error and cumulative dose uncertainty of the cochlea. Methods: Data from 10 head and neck patients with 10 planning CTs and 52 Cone Beam CTs taken at time of treatment were used in this study. Patients were treated with conventional fractionation using an IMRT dose painting technique, most with 33 fractions. Weekly radiographic imaging was used to correct the patient setup. The authors used rigid registration of the planning CT and Cone Beam CT scans to find themore » translational and rotational setup errors, and the spatial setup errors of the cochlea. The planning CT was rotated and translated such that the cochlea positions match those seen in the cone beam scans, cochlea doses were recalculated and fractional doses accumulated. Uncertainties in the positions and cumulative doses of the cochlea were calculated with and without setup adjustments from radiographic imaging. Results: The mean setup error of the cochlea was 0.04 ± 0.33 or 0.06 ± 0.43 cm for RL, 0.09 ± 0.27 or 0.07 ± 0.48 cm for AP, and 0.00 ± 0.21 or −0.24 ± 0.45 cm for SI with and without radiographic imaging, respectively. Setup with radiographic imaging reduced the standard deviation of the setup error by roughly 1–2 mm. The uncertainty of the cochlea dose depends on the treatment plan and the relative positions of the cochlea and target volumes. Combining results for the left and right cochlea, the authors found the accumulated uncertainty of the cochlea dose per fraction was 4.82 (0.39–16.8) cGy, or 10.1 (0.8–32.4) cGy, with and without radiographic imaging, respectively; the percentage uncertainties relative to the planned doses were 4.32% (0.28%–9.06%) and 10.2% (0.7%–63.6%), respectively. Conclusions: Patient setup error introduces uncertainty in the position of the cochlea during radiation treatment. With the assistance of radiographic imaging during setup, the standard deviation of setup error reduced by 31%, 42%, and 54% in RL, AP, and SI direction, respectively, and consequently, the uncertainty of the mean dose to cochlea reduced more than 50%. The authors estimate that the effects of these uncertainties on the probability of hearing loss for an individual patient could be as large as 10%.« 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