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

Title: MO-B-201-02: Motion Management for Proton Lung SBR

Abstract

The motion management in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a key to success for a SBRT program, and still an on-going challenging task. A major factor is that moving structures behave differently than standing structures when examined by imaging modalities, and thus require special considerations and employments. Understanding the motion effects to these different imaging processes is a prerequisite for a decent motion management program. The commonly used motion control techniques to physically restrict tumor motion, if adopted correctly, effectively increase the conformity and accuracy of hypofractionated treatment. The effective application of such requires one to understand the mechanics of the application and the related physiology especially related to respiration. The image-guided radiation beam control, or tumor tracking, further realized the endeavor for precision-targeting. During tumor tracking, the respiratory motion is often constantly monitored by non-ionizing beam sources using the body surface as its surrogate. This then has to synchronize with the actual internal tumor motion. The latter is often accomplished by stereo X-ray imaging or similar techniques. With these advanced technologies, one may drastically reduce the treated volume and increase the clinicians’ confidence for a high fractional ablative radiation dose. However, the challenges in implementing the motion managementmore » may not be trivial and is dependent on each clinic case. This session of presentations is intended to provide an overview of the current techniques used in managing the tumor motion in SBRT, specifically for routine lung SBRT, proton based treatments, and newly-developed MR guided RT. Learning Objectives: Through this presentation, the audience will understand basic roles of commonly used imaging modalities for lung cancer studies; familiarize the major advantages and limitations of each discussed motion control methods; familiarize the major advantages and limitations of each discussed radiation beam control methodology and tumor tacking method; understand the key points in motion management for a high quality SBRT program.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649506
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; BEAMS; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; IMAGES; LUNGS; NEOPLASMS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Flampouri, S. MO-B-201-02: Motion Management for Proton Lung SBR. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957176.
Flampouri, S. MO-B-201-02: Motion Management for Proton Lung SBR. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957176.
Flampouri, S. 2016. "MO-B-201-02: Motion Management for Proton Lung SBR". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957176.
@article{osti_22649506,
title = {MO-B-201-02: Motion Management for Proton Lung SBR},
author = {Flampouri, S.},
abstractNote = {The motion management in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a key to success for a SBRT program, and still an on-going challenging task. A major factor is that moving structures behave differently than standing structures when examined by imaging modalities, and thus require special considerations and employments. Understanding the motion effects to these different imaging processes is a prerequisite for a decent motion management program. The commonly used motion control techniques to physically restrict tumor motion, if adopted correctly, effectively increase the conformity and accuracy of hypofractionated treatment. The effective application of such requires one to understand the mechanics of the application and the related physiology especially related to respiration. The image-guided radiation beam control, or tumor tracking, further realized the endeavor for precision-targeting. During tumor tracking, the respiratory motion is often constantly monitored by non-ionizing beam sources using the body surface as its surrogate. This then has to synchronize with the actual internal tumor motion. The latter is often accomplished by stereo X-ray imaging or similar techniques. With these advanced technologies, one may drastically reduce the treated volume and increase the clinicians’ confidence for a high fractional ablative radiation dose. However, the challenges in implementing the motion management may not be trivial and is dependent on each clinic case. This session of presentations is intended to provide an overview of the current techniques used in managing the tumor motion in SBRT, specifically for routine lung SBRT, proton based treatments, and newly-developed MR guided RT. Learning Objectives: Through this presentation, the audience will understand basic roles of commonly used imaging modalities for lung cancer studies; familiarize the major advantages and limitations of each discussed motion control methods; familiarize the major advantages and limitations of each discussed radiation beam control methodology and tumor tacking method; understand the key points in motion management for a high quality SBRT program.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957176},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To quantify and compare the effects of respiratory motion on paired passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) and intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT) plans; and to establish the relationship between the magnitude of tumor motion and the respiratory-induced dose difference for both modalities. Methods and Materials: In a randomized clinical trial comparing PSPT and IMRT, radiation therapy plans have been designed according to common planning protocols. Four-dimensional (4D) dose was computed for PSPT and IMRT plans for a patient cohort with respiratory motion ranging from 3 to 17 mm. Image registration and dose accumulation were performed using grayscale-based deformable imagemore » registration algorithms. The dose–volume histogram (DVH) differences (4D-3D [3D = 3-dimensional]) were compared for PSPT and IMRT. Changes in 4D-3D dose were correlated to the magnitude of tumor respiratory motion. Results: The average 4D-3D dose to 95% of the internal target volume was close to zero, with 19 of 20 patients within 1% of prescribed dose for both modalities. The mean 4D-3D between the 2 modalities was not statistically significant (P<.05) for all dose–volume histogram indices (mean ± SD) except the lung V5 (PSPT: +1.1% ± 0.9%; IMRT: +0.4% ± 1.2%) and maximum cord dose (PSPT: +1.5 ± 2.9 Gy; IMRT: 0.0 ± 0.2 Gy). Changes in 4D-3D dose were correlated to tumor motion for only 2 indices: dose to 95% planning target volume, and heterogeneity index. Conclusions: With our current margin formalisms, target coverage was maintained in the presence of respiratory motion up to 17 mm for both PSPT and IMRT. Only 2 of 11 4D-3D indices (lung V5 and spinal cord maximum) were statistically distinguishable between PSPT and IMRT, contrary to the notion that proton therapy will be more susceptible to respiratory motion. Because of the lack of strong correlations with 4D-3D dose differences in PSPT and IMRT, the extent of tumor motion was not an adequate predictor of potential dosimetric error caused by breathing motion.« less
  • Purpose: To study breathing related tumor motion amplitudes by lung lobe location under controlled breathing conditions used in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for NSCLC. Methods: Sixty-five NSCLC SBRT patients since 2009 were investigated. Patients were categorized based on tumor anatomic location (RUL-17, RML-7, RLL-18, LUL-14, LLL-9). A 16-slice CT scanner [GE RT16 Pro] along with Varian Realtime Position Management (RPM) software was used to acquire the 4DCT data set using 1.25 mm slice width. Images were binned in 10 phases, T00 being at maximum inspiration ' T50 at maximum expiration phase. Tumor volume was segmented in T50 using themore » CT-lung window and its displacement were measured from phase to phase in all three axes; superiorinferior, anterior-posterior ' medial-lateral at the centroid level of the tumor. Results: The median tumor movement in each lobe was as follows: RUL= 3.8±2.0 mm (mean ITV: 9.5 cm{sup 3}), RML= 4.7±2.8 mm (mean ITV: 9.2 cm{sup 3}), RLL=6.6±2.6 mm (mean ITV: 12.3 cm{sup 3}), LUL=3.8±2.4 mm (mean ITV: 18.5 cm{sup 3}), ' LLL=4.7±2.5 mm (mean ITV: 11.9 cm{sup 3}). The median respiratory cycle for all patients was found to be 3.81 ± 1.08 seconds [minimum 2.50 seconds, maximum 7.07 seconds]. The tumor mobility incorporating breathing cycle was RUL = 0.95±0.49 mm/s, RML = 1.35±0.62 mm/s, RLL = 1.83±0.71 mm/s, LUL = 0.98 ±0.50 mm/s, and LLL = 1.15 ±0.53 mm/s. Conclusion: Our results show that tumor displacement is location dependent. The range of motion and mobility increases as the location of the tumor nears the diaphragm. Under abdominal compression, the magnitude of tumor motion is reduced by as much as a factor of 2 in comparison to reported tumor magnitudes under conventional free breathing conditions. This study demonstrates the utility of abdominal compression in reducing the tumor motion leading to reduced ITV and planning tumor volumes (PTV)« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate patient parameters that may predict for relative differences in cumulative four-dimensional (4D) lung dose among several motion management strategies. Methods and Materials: Deformable image registration and dose accumulation were used to generate 4D treatment plans for 18 patients with 4D computed tomography scans. Three plans were generated to simulate breath hold at normal inspiration, target tracking with the beam aperture, and mid-ventilation aperture (control of the target at the mean daily position and application of an iteratively computed margin to compensate for respiration). The relative reduction in mean lung dose (MLD) between breath hold and mid-ventilation aperturemore » ({delta}MLD{sub BH}) and between target tracking and mid-ventilation aperture ({delta}MLD{sub TT}) was calculated. Associations between these two variables and parameters of the lesion (excursion, size, location, and deformation) and dose distribution (local dose gradient near the target) were also calculated. Results: The largest absolute and percentage differences in MLD were 1.0 Gy and 21.5% between breath hold and mid-ventilation aperture. {delta}MLD{sub BH} was significantly associated (p < 0.05) with tumor excursion. The {delta}MLD{sub TT} was significantly associated with excursion, deformation, and local dose gradient. A linear model was constructed to represent {delta}MLD vs. excursion. For each 5 mm of excursion, target tracking reduced the MLD by 4% compared with the results of a mid-ventilation aperture plan. For breath hold, the reduction was 5% per 5 mm of excursion. Conclusions: The relative difference in MLD among different motion management strategies varied with patient and tumor characteristics for a given dosimetric target coverage. Tumor excursion is useful to aid in stratifying patients according to appropriate motion management strategies.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study was to quantify the effects of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT), 4D image guidance (4D-IG), and beam gating on calculated treatment field margins in a lung cancer patient population. Materials and Methods: Images were acquired from 46 lung cancer patients participating in four separate protocols at three institutions in Europe and the United States. Seven patients were imaged using fluoroscopy, and 39 patients were imaged using 4DCT. The magnitude of respiratory tumor motion was measured. The required treatment field margins were calculated using a statistical recipe (van Herk M, et al. Int J Radiat Oncolmore » Biol Phys 2000;474:1121-1135), with magnitudes of all uncertainties, except respiratory peak-to-peak displacement, the same for all patients, taken from literature. Required margins for respiratory motion management were calculated using the residual respiratory tumor motion for each patient for various motion management strategies. Margin reductions for respiration management were calculated using 4DCT, 4D-IG, and gated beam delivery. Results: The median tumor motion magnitude was 4.4 mm for the 46 patients (range 0-29.3 mm). This value corresponded to required treatment field margins of 13.7 to 36.3 mm (median 14.4 mm). The use of 4DCT, 4D-IG, and beam gating required margins that were reduced by 0 to 13.9 mm (median 0.5 mm), 3 to 5.2 mm (median 5.1 mm), and 0 to 7 mm (median 0.2 mm), respectively, to a total of 8.5 to 12.4 mm (median 8.6 mm). Conclusion: A respiratory management strategy for lung cancer radiotherapy including planning on 4DCT scans and daily image guidance provides a potential reduction of 37% to 47% in treatment field margins. The 4D image guidance strategy was the most effective strategy for >85% of the patients.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of three target localization methods for image guided motion management in lung cancer radiotherapy. Methods: Three online image localization methods, including (1) 2D method based on 2D cone beam (CB) projection images, (2) 3D method using 3D cone beam CT (CBCT) imaging, and (3) 4D method using 4D CBCT imaging, have been evaluated using a moving phantom controlled by (a) 1D theoretical breathing motion curves and (b) 3D target motion patterns obtained from daily treatment of 3 lung cancer patients. While all methods are able to provide target mean position (MP), the 2Dmore » and 4D methods can also provide target motion standard deviation (SD) and excursion (EX). For each method, the detected MP/SD/EX values are compared to the analytically calculated actual values to calculate the errors. The MP errors are compared among three methods and the SD/EX errors are compared between the 2D and 4D methods. In the theoretical motion study (a), the dependency of MP/SD/EX error on EX is investigated with EX varying from 2.0 cm to 3.0 cm with an increment step of 0.2 cm. In the patient motion study (b), the dependency of MP error on target sizes (2.0 cm and 3.0 cm), motion patterns (four motions per patient) and EX variations is investigated using multivariant linear regression analysis. Results: In the theoretical motion study (a), the MP detection errors are −0.2 ± 0.2, −1.5 ± 1.1, and −0.2 ± 0.2 mm for 2D, 3D, and 4D methods, respectively. Both the 2D and 4D methods could accurately detect motion pattern EX (error < 1.2 mm) and SD (error < 1.0 mm). In the patient motion study (b), MP detection error vector (mm) with the 2D method (0.7 ± 0.4) is found to be significantly less than with the 3D method (1.7 ± 0.8,p < 0.001) and the 4D method (1.4 ± 1.0, p < 0.001) using paired t-test. However, no significant difference is found between the 4D method and the 3D method. Based on multivariant linear regression analysis, the variances of MP error in SI direction explained by target sizes, motion patterns, and EX variations are 9% with the 2D method, 74.4% with the 3D method, and 27% with the 4D method. The EX/SD detection errors are both < 1.0 mm for the 2D method and < 2.0 mm for the 4D method. Conclusions: The 2D method provides the most accurate MP detection regardless of the motion pattern variations, while its performance is limited by the accuracy of target identification in the projection images. The 3D method causes the largest error in MP determination, and its accuracy significantly depends on target sizes, motion patterns, and EX variations. The 4D method provides moderate MP detection results, while its accuracy relies on a regular motion pattern. In addition, the 2D and 4D methods both provide accurate measurement of the motion SD/EX, providing extra information for motion management.« less