Patient's specific integration of OAR doses (D2 cc) from EBRT and 3D image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer

Deformable image registration for composite planned doses during adaptive radiation therapy

INTRODUCTION

Some patients have significant anatomic changes during radiotherapy, necessitating an adaptive repeat CT-simulation and re-planning. This yields two unique planning datasets that introduce uncertainty into total dose records. This study explored the impact of using deformable image registration (DIR) to spatially align repeat CT-simulation images and calculate total planned dose distributions.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Data from 5 head-and-neck, 5 lung, and 5 sarcoma patients who had unanticipated re-planning during radiotherapy were analyzed in a treatment planning system (RayStation v6.1 RaySearch Laboratories). Total planned doses to normal tissues were calculated using two methods and the previously generated manual contours defined on each CT. The first method, termed 'parameter addition', simply sums the relevant DVH metrics from the initial and re-planned distributions without spatially registering the CTs. The second, termed 'dose accumulation', uses a validated hybrid contour/intensity-based DIR algorithm to deform initial CT and dose distribution onto the repeat CT and re-planning dose distribution. DVH metrics from the summed distribution on the repeat CT are then calculated. Dose differences for organs-at-risk between parameter addition and dose accumulation ≥100 cGy were assumed to be clinically relevant. To elucidate whether relevant differences were due to registration accuracy or contouring variability between CTs, the analysis was repeated using contours on the first CT and the same contours deformed to the repeat CT with DIR.

RESULTS

For all patients, high overall DIR accuracy was verified visually (qualitatively) and numerically (quantitatively) using image similarity and contour-based metrics. All head-and-neck and lung patients, and one sarcoma patient (11 of 15 total) had dose differences between parameter addition and dose accumulation ≥100 cGy, with absolute mean differences of 160 cGy (range 101-436 cGy) seen in 41 of 205 total DVH criteria. In 22 of these 41 criteria, these differences were attributed to contouring variability between CTs. After correcting for contouring variations using DIR, the mean absolute differences in 7 of these 22 criteria with a relevant result (across 6 patients) was 146 cGy (range 100-502 cGy). In only 4 DVH criteria, the DIR mapped contours had higher variations than the original contours. One lung patient had a DVH criteria exceeding the clinical dose constraint by 125 cGy with parameter addition, and with accurate DIR and dose accumulation, the criteria was actually 97 cGy lower than the constraint.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DIR to generate total planned dose records revealed substantial dose differences in most cases compared to commonly used clinical methods (i.e. parameter addition), and altered the planned acceptance criteria in a minority. DIR is recommended to be used for future adaptive re-plans to generate total planned dose records and facilitate accurate re-contouring. More accurate dose records may also improve our understanding of clinical outcomes.

Dosimetric Uncertainties Resulting From Interfractional Anatomic Variations for Patients Receiving Pancreas Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Image Guidance

PURPOSE

To estimate the effects of interfractional anatomic changes on dose to organs at risk (OARs) and tumors, as measured with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance for pancreatic stereotactic body radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We evaluated 11 patients with pancreatic cancer whom were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (33-40 Gy in 5 fractions) using daily CT-on-rails (CTOR) image guidance immediately before treatment with breath-hold motion management. CBCT alignment was simulated in the treatment planning software by aligning the original planning CT to each fractional CTOR image set via fiducial markers. CTOR data sets were used to calculate fractional doses after alignment by applying the rigid shift of the planning CT and CTOR image sets to the planning treatment isocenter and recalculating the fractional dose. Accumulated dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV), tumor vessel interface, duodenum, small bowel, and stomach were calculated by summing the 5 fractional absolute dose-volume histograms into a single dose-volume histogram for comparison with the original planned dose.

RESULTS

Four patients had a GTV D100% of at least 1.5 Gy less than the fractional planned value in several fractions; 4 patients had fractional underestimation of duodenum dose by 1.0 Gy per fraction. The D1.0 cm³ <35 Gy constraint was violated for at least 1 OAR in 3 patients, with either the duodenum (n = 2) or small bowel (n = 1) D1.0 cm³ being higher on the accumulated dose distribution (P = .01). D100% was significantly lower according to accumulated dose GTV (P = .01) and tumor vessel interface (P = .02), with 4 and 2 patients having accumulated D100%  ≥4 Gy lower than the planned value for the GTV and tumor vessel interface, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For some patients, CBCT image guidance based on fiducial alignment may cause large dosimetric uncertainties for OARs and target structures, according to accumulated dose.

Appropriate Methodology for EBRT and HDR Intracavitary/Interstitial Brachytherapy Dose Composite and Clinical Plan Evaluation for Patients With Cervical Cancer

PURPOSE

This study assessed the appropriateness of full parameter addition (FPA) methods with respect to the 3-dimensional deformable dose composite method for evaluating combined external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 22 patients who received EBRT and high-dose-rate ICBT were retrospectively evaluated. Split-ring and tandem applicators were used for all patients. Additional interstitial needles were used for 5 patients to supplement the implant. Deformable image registrations were performed to deform the secondary EBRT and ICBT planning computed tomography (CT) images onto the reference CT from the third fraction of ICBT. The Dice similarity coefficient was used to evaluate the quality of deformable registration. Doses were transferred to the reference CT, scaled to the equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions and combined to create the dose composite. Eight dose-accumulation methods were evaluated and compared. D_2cc and D_0.1cc for organs at risk were investigated.

RESULTS

The differences in D_2cc for rectum, bladder, sigmoid, and bowel between the FPA method for whole-pelvis EBRT and ICBT, calculated using an old American Brachytherapy Society worksheet (FPA_E_h + I_old) and deformable composite for EBRT with boosts and ICBT (Def_E + B + I) were -2.19 ± 1.37 Gy_{α/β = 3}, -0.64 ± 1.13 Gy_{α/β = 3}, -2.06 ± 2.71 Gy_{α/β = 3}, and -1.59 ± 0.89 Gy_{α/β = 3}, respectively. The differences in D_2cc for rectum, bladder, sigmoid, and bowel between the new ABS worksheet (FPA_E_h + B + I_abs) and the Def_E + B + I method were 1.21 ± 1.22 Gy _{α/β = 3}, 1.93 ± 1.38 Gy_{α/β = 3}, 0.72 ± 1.12 Gy_{α/β = 3}, and 1.19 ± 1.46 Gy_{α/β = 3}, respectively. Differences in dose-volume histogram parameter values among Def_E + B + I and other FPA methods were not statistically significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the FPA-based method, deformable registration-based dose composites demonstrated lower OAR D_2cc and D_0.1cc values; however, the differences were not statistically significant. The current ABS-recommended FPA-based sheet can serve as an acceptable plan evaluation tool for clinical purposes.

Comparative analysis of image-guided adaptive interstitial brachytherapy and intensity-modulated arc therapy versus conventional treatment techniques in cervical cancer using biological dose summation

Purpose

To compare image-guided adaptive interstitial brachytherapy (BT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) with conventional treatment techniques in cervical cancer using an alternative biological dose summation method.

Material and methods

Initially, 21 interstitial BT and IMAT plans of patients with cervical cancer were included and additional plans were created (inverse optimized interstitial, optimized intracavitary, non-optimized intracavitary BT plans, and conformal external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]). The most exposed volume of critical organs in BT were identified manually on EBRT CT images. Biological total doses (EQD2) were calculated and compared between each combination of BT and EBRT plans. This method was compared with uniform dose conception (UDC) in IMAT and conformal EBRT plans.

Results

The D₉₀ of high-risk CTV and D₂ of bladder and sigmoid were different in BT techniques only: p = 0.0149, < 0.001, < 0.001, respectively. The most advantageous values were obtained in the interstitial treatment plans and inverse optimized interstitial plans did not differ dosimetrically from these, while optimized intracavitary plans resulted in worse dose-volume parameters, and the worst of all were intracavitary plans without optimization. The D₂ of rectum was significantly lower with IMAT than with conformal EBRT plans (p = 0.037) and showed the same trend in BT plans as the other parameters (p < 0.001). The UDC dose summation method overestimated D₂ of bladder, rectum, and sigmoid (p < 0.001 for all).

Conclusions

Although optimization improves the quality of conventional BT plans, interstitial plans produce significantly higher dose coverage of high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and lower doses to organs at risk (OARs). IMAT plans decrease the dose to the rectum. UDC overestimates OARs doses.