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

Title: TU-H-CAMPUS-JeP3-04: Factors Predicting a Need for Treatment Replanning with Proton Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: Proton dose distribution is sensitive to tumor regression and tissue and normal anatomy changes. Replanning is sometimes necessary during treatment to ensure continue tumor coverage or avoid overtreatment of organs at risk (OARs). We investigated action thresholds for replanning and identified both dosimetric and non-dosimetric metrics that would predict a need for replan. Methods: All consecutive lung cancer patients (n = 188) who received definitive proton radiotherapy and had more than two evaluation CT scans at the Roberts Proton Therapy Center (Philadelphia, USA) from 2011 to 2015 were included in this study. The cohort included a variety of tumor sizes, locations, histology, beam angles, as well as radiation-induced tumor and lung change. Dosimetric changes during therapy were characterized by changes in the dose volume distribution of PTV, ITV, and OARs (heart, cord, esophagus, brachial plexus and lungs). Tumor and lung change were characterized by changes in sizes, and in the distribution of Hounsfield numbers and water equivalent thickness (WET) along the beam path. We applied machine learning tools to identify both dosimetric and non-dosimetric metrics that predicted a replan. Results: Preliminary data showed that clinical indicators (n = 54) were highly correlated; thus, a simple indicator may be derivedmore » to guide the action threshold for replanning. Additionally, tumor regression alone could not predict dosimetric changes in OARs; it required further information about beam angles and tumor locations. Conclusion: Both dosimetric and non-dosimetric factors are predictive of the need for replanning during proton treatment.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22654075
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; LUNGS; NEOPLASMS; PROTON BEAMS; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Teng, C, Janssens, G, Ainsley, C, Teo, B, Valdes, G, Burgdorf, B, Berman, A, Levin, W, Xiao, Y, Lin, L, Gabriel, P, Simone, C, and Solberg, T. TU-H-CAMPUS-JeP3-04: Factors Predicting a Need for Treatment Replanning with Proton Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957702.
Teng, C, Janssens, G, Ainsley, C, Teo, B, Valdes, G, Burgdorf, B, Berman, A, Levin, W, Xiao, Y, Lin, L, Gabriel, P, Simone, C, & Solberg, T. TU-H-CAMPUS-JeP3-04: Factors Predicting a Need for Treatment Replanning with Proton Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957702.
Teng, C, Janssens, G, Ainsley, C, Teo, B, Valdes, G, Burgdorf, B, Berman, A, Levin, W, Xiao, Y, Lin, L, Gabriel, P, Simone, C, and Solberg, T. 2016. "TU-H-CAMPUS-JeP3-04: Factors Predicting a Need for Treatment Replanning with Proton Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957702.
@article{osti_22654075,
title = {TU-H-CAMPUS-JeP3-04: Factors Predicting a Need for Treatment Replanning with Proton Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer},
author = {Teng, C and Janssens, G and Ainsley, C and Teo, B and Valdes, G and Burgdorf, B and Berman, A and Levin, W and Xiao, Y and Lin, L and Gabriel, P and Simone, C and Solberg, T},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Proton dose distribution is sensitive to tumor regression and tissue and normal anatomy changes. Replanning is sometimes necessary during treatment to ensure continue tumor coverage or avoid overtreatment of organs at risk (OARs). We investigated action thresholds for replanning and identified both dosimetric and non-dosimetric metrics that would predict a need for replan. Methods: All consecutive lung cancer patients (n = 188) who received definitive proton radiotherapy and had more than two evaluation CT scans at the Roberts Proton Therapy Center (Philadelphia, USA) from 2011 to 2015 were included in this study. The cohort included a variety of tumor sizes, locations, histology, beam angles, as well as radiation-induced tumor and lung change. Dosimetric changes during therapy were characterized by changes in the dose volume distribution of PTV, ITV, and OARs (heart, cord, esophagus, brachial plexus and lungs). Tumor and lung change were characterized by changes in sizes, and in the distribution of Hounsfield numbers and water equivalent thickness (WET) along the beam path. We applied machine learning tools to identify both dosimetric and non-dosimetric metrics that predicted a replan. Results: Preliminary data showed that clinical indicators (n = 54) were highly correlated; thus, a simple indicator may be derived to guide the action threshold for replanning. Additionally, tumor regression alone could not predict dosimetric changes in OARs; it required further information about beam angles and tumor locations. Conclusion: Both dosimetric and non-dosimetric factors are predictive of the need for replanning during proton treatment.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957702},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: With introduction of high-quality treatment imaging during radiation therapy (RT) delivery, e.g., MR-Linac, adaptive replanning of either online or offline becomes appealing. Dose accumulation of delivered fractions, a prerequisite for the adaptive replanning, can be cumbersome and inaccurate. The purpose of this work is to develop an automated process to accumulate daily doses and to assess the dose accumulation accuracy voxel-by-voxel for adaptive replanning. Methods: The process includes the following main steps: 1) reconstructing daily dose for each delivered fraction with a treatment planning system (Monaco, Elekta) based on the daily images using machine delivery log file and consideringmore » patient repositioning if applicable, 2) overlaying the daily dose to the planning image based on deformable image registering (DIR) (ADMIRE, Elekta), 3) assessing voxel dose deformation accuracy based on deformation field using predetermined criteria, and 4) outputting accumulated dose and dose-accuracy volume histograms and parameters. Daily CTs acquired using a CT-on-rails during routine CT-guided RT for sample patients with head and neck and prostate cancers were used to test the process. Results: Daily and accumulated doses (dose-volume histograms, etc) along with their accuracies (dose-accuracy volume histogram) can be robustly generated using the proposed process. The test data for a head and neck cancer case shows that the gross tumor volume decreased by 20% towards the end of treatment course, and the parotid gland mean dose increased by 10%. Such information would trigger adaptive replanning for the subsequent fractions. The voxel-based accuracy in the accumulated dose showed that errors in accumulated dose near rigid structures were small. Conclusion: A procedure as well as necessary tools to automatically accumulate daily dose and assess dose accumulation accuracy is developed and is useful for adaptive replanning. Partially supported by Elekta, Inc.« less
  • Purpose: To describe the development of a knowledge-based treatment planning model for lung cancer patients treated with SBRT, and to evaluate the model performance and applicability to different planning techniques and tumor locations. Methods: 105 lung SBRT plans previously treated at our institution were included in the development of the model using Varian’s RapidPlan DVH estimation algorithm. The model was trained with a combination of IMRT, VMAT, and 3D–CRT techniques. Tumor locations encompassed lesions located centrally vs peripherally (43:62), upper vs lower (62:43), and anterior vs posterior lobes (60:45). The model performance was validated with 25 cases independent of themore » training set, for both IMRT and VMAT. Model generated plans were created with only one optimization and no planner intervention. The original, general model was also divided into four separate models according to tumor location. The model was also applied using different beam templates to further improve workflow. Dose differences to targets and organs-at-risk were evaluated. Results: IMRT and VMAT RapidPlan generated plans were comparable to clinical plans with respect to target coverage and several OARs. Spinal cord dose was lowered in the model-based plans by 1Gy compared to the clinical plans, p=0.008. Splitting the model according to tumor location resulted in insignificant differences in DVH estimation. The peripheral model decreased esophagus dose to the central lesions by 0.5Gy compared to the original model, p=0.025, and the posterior model increased dose to the spinal cord by 1Gy compared to the anterior model, p=0.001. All template beam plans met OAR criteria, with 1Gy increases noted in maximum heart dose for the 9-field plans, p=0.04. Conclusion: A RapidPlan knowledge-based model for lung SBRT produces comparable results to clinical plans, with increased consistency and greater efficiency. The model encompasses both IMRT and VMAT techniques, differing tumor locations, and beam arrangements. Research supported in part by a grant from Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto CA.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate factors associated with treatment-related pneumonitis in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 223 patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Treatment-related pneumonitis was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictive factors. Results: Median follow-up was 10.5 months (range, 1.4-58 months). The actuarial incidence of Grade {>=}3 pneumonitis was 22% at 6 months and 32% at 1 year. By univariate analyses, lung volume, gross tumor volume, mean lung dose, and relative V5 through V65, in incrementsmore » of 5 Gy, were all found to be significantly associated with treatment-related pneumonitis. The mean lung dose and rV5-rV65 were highly correlated (p < 0.0001). By multivariate analysis, relative V5 was the most significant factor associated with treatment-related pneumonitis; the 1-year actuarial incidences of Grade {>=}3 pneumonitis in the group with V5 {<=}42% and V5 >42% were 3% and 38%, respectively (p = 0.001). Conclusions: In this study, a number of clinical and dosimetric factors were found to be significantly associated with treatment-related pneumonitis. However, rV5 was the only significant factor associated with this toxicity. Until it is better understood which dose range is most relevant, multiple clinical and dosimetric factors should be considered in treatment planning for non-small-cell lung cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy.« less
  • Purpose: Proton beam radiotherapy has been proposed for use in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. In the present study, we sought to analyze how the range uncertainties for protons might affect its therapeutic utility for SBRT. Methods and Materials: Ten patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer received SBRT with two to three proton beams. The patients underwent repeat planning for photon SBRT, and the dose distributions to the normal and tumor tissues were compared with the proton plans. The dosimetric comparisons were performed within an operational definition of high- and low-dose regions representing volumes receiving >50%more » and <50% of the prescription dose, respectively. Results: In high-dose regions, the average volume receiving {>=}95% of the prescription dose was larger for proton than for photon SBRT (i.e., 46.5 cm{sup 3} vs. 33.5 cm{sup 3}; p = .009, respectively). The corresponding conformity indexes were 2.46 and 1.56. For tumors in close proximity to the chest wall, the chest wall volume receiving {>=}30 Gy was 7 cm{sup 3} larger for protons than for photons (p = .06). In low-dose regions, the lung volume receiving {>=}5 Gy and maximum esophagus dose were smaller for protons than for photons (p = .019 and p < .001, respectively). Conclusions: Protons generate larger high-dose regions than photons because of range uncertainties. This can result in nearby healthy organs (e.g., chest wall) receiving close to the prescription dose, at least when two to three beams are used, such as in our study. Therefore, future research should explore the benefit of using more than three beams to reduce the dose to nearby organs. Additionally, clinical subgroups should be identified that will benefit from proton SBRT.« less
  • Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can produce excellent local control of several types of solid tumor; however, toxicity to nearby critical structures is a concern. We found previously that in SBRT for lung cancer, the chest wall (CW) volume receiving 20, 30, or 40 Gy (V{sub 20}, V{sub 30}, or V{sub 40}) was linked with the development of neuropathy. Here we sought to determine whether the dosimetric advantages of protons could produce lower CW doses than traditional photon-based SBRT. We searched an institutional database to identify patients treated with photon SBRT for lung cancer with tumors within < 2.5 cm ofmore » the CW. We found 260 cases; of these, chronic grade ≥ 2 CW pain was identified in 23 patients. We then selected 10 representative patients from this group and generated proton SBRT treatment plans, using the identical dose of 50 Gy in 4 fractions, and assessed potential differences in CW dose between the 2 plans. The proton SBRT plans reduced the CW doses at all dose levels measured. The median CW V{sub 20} was 364.0 cm{sup 3} and 160.0 cm{sup 3} (p < 0.0001), V{sub 30} was 144.6 cm{sup 3}vs 77.0 cm{sup 3} (p = 0.0012), V{sub 35} was 93.9 cm{sup 3}vs 57.9 cm{sup 3} (p = 0.005), V{sub 40} was 66.5 cm{sup 3}vs 45.4 cm{sup 3} (p = 0.0112), and mean lung dose was 5.9 Gy vs 3.8 Gy (p = 0.0001) for photons and protons, respectively. Coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) was comparable between the 2 sets of plans (96.4% for photons and 97% for protons). From a dosimetric standpoint, proton SBRT can achieve the same coverage of the PTV while significantly reducing the dose to the CW and lung relative to photon SBRT and therefore may be beneficial for the treatment of lesions closer to critical structures.« less