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

Title: SU-G-TeP1-09: Modality-Specific Dose Gradient Modeling for Prostate IMRT Using Spherical Distance Maps of PTV and Isodose Contours

Abstract

Purpose: Overlapping volume histogram (OVH) and distance-to-target histogram (DTH) calculations rely on the assumption that dose gradients are symmetric with respect to primary target volume (PTV) expansion and minimum distance to PTV surface, respectively. It is desirable to lift this assumption and instead account for achievable modality-specific dose gradients (MSDG) for a given PTV shape. Methods: From a library of 96 prostate 7-beam IMRT plans, we computed spherical distance maps (SDMs) for PTVs and 3 iso-dose contours. Each SDM contains the minimum distances between plan isocenter and the object’s surface for a fixed set of azimuthal and polar angles. We performed principal component analysis (PCA)-based missing data recovery with PTV SDM as input and a single iso-dose contour SDM as output. Repeating this process for the set of iso-dose contours sparsely reconstructed the MSDG for a given PTV. DVH points were computed from the MSDG for bladder and rectum (OARs) as a natural way of casting patient-specific geometric information into modality-specific dose space (vs. OVH and DTH where data is purely geometric). For comparison, we implemented a cumulative (c)DTH-based prediction algorithm, and produced DVH for both OARs separately. We then computed linear regressions between each method and the DVH ofmore » the original patient plan for three different OAR DVH points. Results: R-squared for MSD-Gcomputed DVH vs. original plan DVH at V90%, V80% and V60% of max dose were 0.86, 0.83, and 0.78, for bladder and 0.36, 0.52, and 0.55 for rectum, respectively; R-squared for cDTH-based predicted DVH vs. original plan DVH were 0.67, 0.81, and 0.83, for bladder and 0.44, 0.50, and 0.51, for rectum, respectively. Conclusion: By simply modeling the MSDG about a given PTV, we are able to reproduce DVHs consistent with a validated cDTH-based DVH prediction. Regression analysis suggests MSDG could further improve predictions.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ; ;  [1];  [3]
  1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649349
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; BLADDER; DISTANCE; FORECASTING; PROSTATE; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; SPHERICAL CONFIGURATION

Citation Formats

Folkerts, MM, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, Gu, X, Lu, W, Jiang, SB, and Radke, RJ. SU-G-TeP1-09: Modality-Specific Dose Gradient Modeling for Prostate IMRT Using Spherical Distance Maps of PTV and Isodose Contours. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956999.
Folkerts, MM, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, Gu, X, Lu, W, Jiang, SB, & Radke, RJ. SU-G-TeP1-09: Modality-Specific Dose Gradient Modeling for Prostate IMRT Using Spherical Distance Maps of PTV and Isodose Contours. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956999.
Folkerts, MM, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, Gu, X, Lu, W, Jiang, SB, and Radke, RJ. Wed . "SU-G-TeP1-09: Modality-Specific Dose Gradient Modeling for Prostate IMRT Using Spherical Distance Maps of PTV and Isodose Contours". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956999.
@article{osti_22649349,
title = {SU-G-TeP1-09: Modality-Specific Dose Gradient Modeling for Prostate IMRT Using Spherical Distance Maps of PTV and Isodose Contours},
author = {Folkerts, MM and University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA and Gu, X and Lu, W and Jiang, SB and Radke, RJ},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Overlapping volume histogram (OVH) and distance-to-target histogram (DTH) calculations rely on the assumption that dose gradients are symmetric with respect to primary target volume (PTV) expansion and minimum distance to PTV surface, respectively. It is desirable to lift this assumption and instead account for achievable modality-specific dose gradients (MSDG) for a given PTV shape. Methods: From a library of 96 prostate 7-beam IMRT plans, we computed spherical distance maps (SDMs) for PTVs and 3 iso-dose contours. Each SDM contains the minimum distances between plan isocenter and the object’s surface for a fixed set of azimuthal and polar angles. We performed principal component analysis (PCA)-based missing data recovery with PTV SDM as input and a single iso-dose contour SDM as output. Repeating this process for the set of iso-dose contours sparsely reconstructed the MSDG for a given PTV. DVH points were computed from the MSDG for bladder and rectum (OARs) as a natural way of casting patient-specific geometric information into modality-specific dose space (vs. OVH and DTH where data is purely geometric). For comparison, we implemented a cumulative (c)DTH-based prediction algorithm, and produced DVH for both OARs separately. We then computed linear regressions between each method and the DVH of the original patient plan for three different OAR DVH points. Results: R-squared for MSD-Gcomputed DVH vs. original plan DVH at V90%, V80% and V60% of max dose were 0.86, 0.83, and 0.78, for bladder and 0.36, 0.52, and 0.55 for rectum, respectively; R-squared for cDTH-based predicted DVH vs. original plan DVH were 0.67, 0.81, and 0.83, for bladder and 0.44, 0.50, and 0.51, for rectum, respectively. Conclusion: By simply modeling the MSDG about a given PTV, we are able to reproduce DVHs consistent with a validated cDTH-based DVH prediction. Regression analysis suggests MSDG could further improve predictions.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956999},
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: 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 estimate the delivered (cumulative) dose to targets and organs at risk for localized prostate cancer patients treated with reduced PTV margins and to evaluate preliminary patient reported quality-of-life (QOL). Methods: Under an IRB-approved protocol, 20 prostate cancer patients (including 11 control patients) were treated with reduced planning margins (5 mm uniform with 4 mm at prostate/rectum interface). Control patients had standard margin (10/6 mm)-based treatments. A parameter-optimized Elastix algorithm along with energy-mass mapping was used to deform and resample dose of the day onto the planning CT for each fraction to estimate the delivered dose over all fractions.more » QOL data were collected via Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaires at time points pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 2, 6, 12, 18 month follow-ups. Standardized QOL scores [range: 0–100] were determined and baseline-corrected by subtracting pre-treatment QOL data. Mean QOL differences between the margin reduced group and control group (QOLmr-QOLcontrol) were calculated for first 18 months. Results: The difference between the cumulative mean dose (Dmean) and the planned mean dose (±SD) for PTV, prostate, bladder, and rectum were −2.2±1.0, 0.3±0.5, −0.7±2.6, and −2.1±1.3 Gy respectively for the margin-reduced group, and −0.8±2.0, 0.9±1.4, - 0.7±3.1 and −1.0±2.4 Gy for the control group. Difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant (p=0.1). Standardized and baseline corrected QOLmr-QOLcontrol for EPIC domains categorized as “Urinary Incontinence”, “Urinary Irritative/Obstructive”, “Bowel”, “Sexual”, and “Hormonal” were 0.6, 12.1, 9.1, 13.3, and −0.9 for the 18 months following radiation therapy (higher values better). Delivered dose to rectum showed a weak correlation to “Bowel” domain (Pearson’s coefficient −0.24, p<0.001), while bladder dose did not correlate to Urinary Incontinence/Irritative/Obstructive QOL domains. Conclusion: The margin-reduced group exhibited clinically meaningful improvement of QOL without compromising the PTV dose. A larger number of patients and greater follow-up is needed to draw unequivocal conclusions. This work was supported in part by a research grant from Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of planning target volume (PTV) margins with taking into consideration clinical target volume (CTV) shape variations on treatment plans of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. Methods: The systematic errors and the random errors for patient setup errors in right-left (RL), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions were obtained from data of 20 patients, and those for CTV shape variations were calculated from 10 patients, who were weekly scanned using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The setup error was defined as the difference in prostate centers betweenmore » planning CT and CBCT images after bone-based registrations. CTV shape variations of high, intermediate and low risk CTVs were calculated for each patient from variances of interfractional shape variations on each vertex of three-dimensional CTV point distributions, which were manually obtained from CTV contours on the CBCT images. PTV margins were calculated using the setup errors with and without CTV shape variations for each risk CTV. Six treatment plans were retrospectively made by using the PTV margins with and without CTV shape variations for the three risk CTVs of 5 test patients. Furthermore, the treatment plans were applied to CBCT images for investigating the impact of shape variations on PTV margins. Results: The percentages of population to cover with the PTV, which satisfies the CTV D98 of 95%, with and without the shape variations were 89.7% and 74.4% for high risk, 89.7% and 76.9% for intermediate risk, 84.6% and 76.9% for low risk, respectively. Conclusion: PTV margins taking into account CTV shape variation provide significant improvement of applicable percentage of population (P < 0.05). This study suggested that CTV shape variation should be taken consideration into determination of the PTV margins.« less
  • Purpose: In prostate HDR brachytherapy dose distributions are highly sensitive to changes in prostate volume and catheter displacements. We investigate the maximum deformations in implant geometry before planning objectives are violated. Methods: A typical prostate Ir-192 HDR brachytherapy reference plan was calculated on the Oncentra planning system, which used CT images from a tissue equivalent prostate phantom (CIRS Model 053S) embedded inside a pelvis wax phantom. The prostate was deformed and catheters were displaced in simulations using a code written in MATLAB. For each deformation dose distributions were calculated, based on TG43 methods, using the MATLAB code. The calculations weremore » validated through comparison with Oncentra calculations for the reference plan, and agreed within 0.12%SD and 0.3%SD for dose and volume, respectively. Isotropic prostate volume deformations of up to +34% to −27% relative to its original volume, and longitudinal catheter displacements of 7.5 mm in superior and inferior directions were simulated. Planning objectives were based on American Brachytherapy Society guidelines for prostate and urethra volumes. A plan violated the planning objectives when less than 90% of the prostate volume received the prescribed dose or higher (V{sub 100}), or the urethral volume receiving 125% of prescribed dose or higher was more than 1 cc (U{sub 125}). Lastly, the dose homogeneity index (DHI=1-V{sub 150}/V{sub 100}) was evaluated; a plan was considered sub-optimal when the DHI fell below 0.62. Results and Conclusion: Planning objectives were violated when the prostate expanded by 10.7±0.5% or contracted by 11.0±0.2%; objectives were also violated when catheters were displaced by 4.15±0.15 mm and 3.70±0.15 mm in the superior and inferior directions, respectively. The DHI changes did not affect the plan optimality, except in the case of prostate compression. In general, catheter displacements have a significantly larger impact on plan optimality than prostate volume changes.« less
  • Purpose: To develop an automated radiotherapy treatment planning and optimization workflow for prostate cancer in order to generate clinical treatment plans. Methods: A fully automated radiotherapy treatment planning and optimization workflow was developed based on the treatment planning system Monaco (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). To evaluate our method, a retrospective planning study (n=100) was performed on patients treated for prostate cancer with 5 field intensity modulated radiotherapy, receiving a dose of 35×2Gy to the prostate and vesicles and a simultaneous integrated boost of 35×0.2Gy to the prostate only. A comparison was made between the dosimetric values of the automatically andmore » manually generated plans. Operator time to generate a plan and plan efficiency was measured. Results: A comparison of the dosimetric values show that automatically generated plans yield more beneficial dosimetric values. In automatic plans reductions of 43% in the V72Gy of the rectum and 13% in the V72Gy of the bladder are observed when compared to the manually generated plans. Smaller variance in dosimetric values is seen, i.e. the intra- and interplanner variability is decreased. For 97% of the automatically generated plans and 86% of the clinical plans all criteria for target coverage and organs at risk constraints are met. The amount of plan segments and monitor units is reduced by 13% and 9% respectively. Automated planning requires less than one minute of operator time compared to over an hour for manual planning. Conclusion: The automatically generated plans are highly suitable for clinical use. The plans have less variance and a large gain in time efficiency has been achieved. Currently, a pilot study is performed, comparing the preference of the clinician and clinical physicist for the automatic versus manual plan. Future work will include expanding our automated treatment planning method to other tumor sites and develop other automated radiotherapy workflows.« less