2
|
Diez P, Hanna GG, Aitken KL, van As N, Carver A, Colaco RJ, Conibear J, Dunne EM, Eaton DJ, Franks KN, Good JS, Harrow S, Hatfield P, Hawkins MA, Jain S, McDonald F, Patel R, Rackley T, Sanghera P, Tree A, Murray L. UK 2022 Consensus on Normal Tissue Dose-Volume Constraints for Oligometastatic, Primary Lung and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022; 34:288-300. [PMID: 35272913 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.02.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2021] [Revised: 01/21/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the UK has expanded over the past decade, in part as the result of several UK clinical trials and a recent NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation programme. A UK SABR Consortium consensus for normal tissue constraints for SABR was published in 2017, based on the existing literature at the time. The published literature regarding SABR has increased in volume over the past 5 years and multiple UK centres are currently working to develop new SABR services. A review and update of the previous consensus is therefore appropriate and timely. It is hoped that this document will provide a useful resource to facilitate safe and consistent SABR practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Diez
- Radiotherapy Physics, National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - G G Hanna
- Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK; Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - K L Aitken
- Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK; Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - N van As
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - A Carver
- Department of Medical Physics, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - R J Colaco
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - J Conibear
- Radiotherapy Department, Barts Cancer Centre, London, UK
| | - E M Dunne
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - D J Eaton
- Radiotherapy Physics, National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; Department of Medical Physics, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - K N Franks
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - J S Good
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - S Harrow
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - P Hatfield
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - M A Hawkins
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomechanical Engineering, University College London, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - S Jain
- Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK; Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - F McDonald
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - R Patel
- Radiotherapy Physics, National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - T Rackley
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - P Sanghera
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - A Tree
- Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK; Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - L Murray
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospitals, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rana S, Rosenfeld AB. Impact of errors in spot size and spot position in robustly optimized pencil beam scanning proton-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) lung plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:147-154. [PMID: 34101334 PMCID: PMC8292703 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2021] [Revised: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the current study was threefold: (a) investigate the impact of the variations (errors) in spot sizes in robustly optimized pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton‐based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) lung plans, (b) evaluate the impact of spot sizes and position errors simultaneously, and (c) assess the overall effect of spot size and position errors occurring simultaneously in conjunction with either setup or range errors. Methods In this retrospective study, computed tomography (CT) data set of five lung patients was selected. Treatment plans were regenerated for a total dose of 5000 cGy(RBE) in 5 fractions using a single‐field optimization (SFO) technique. Monte Carlo was used for the plan optimization and final dose calculations. Nominal plans were normalized such that 99% of the clinical target volume (CTV) received the prescription dose. The analysis was divided into three groups. Group 1: The increasing and decreasing spot sizes were evaluated for ±10%, ±15%, and ±20% errors. Group 2: Errors in spot size and spot positions were evaluated simultaneously (spot size: ±10%; spot position: ±1 and ±2 mm). Group 3: Simulated plans from Group 2 were evaluated for the setup (±5 mm) and range (±3.5%) errors. Results Group 1: For the spot size errors of ±10%, the average reduction in D99% for −10% and +10% errors was 0.7% and 1.1%, respectively. For −15% and +15% spot size errors, the average reduction in D99% was 1.4% and 1.9%, respectively. The average reduction in D99% was 2.1% for −20% error and 2.8% for +20% error. The hot spot evaluation showed that, for the same magnitude of error, the decreasing spot sizes resulted in a positive difference (hotter plan) when compared with the increasing spot sizes. Group 2: For a 10% increase in spot size in conjunction with a −1 mm (+1 mm) shift in spot position, the average reduction in D99% was 1.5% (1.8%). For a 10% decrease in spot size in conjunction with a −1 mm (+1 mm) shift in spot position, the reduction in D99% was 0.8% (0.9%). For the spot size errors of ±10% and spot position errors of ±2 mm, the average reduction in D99% was 2.4%. Group 3: Based on the results from 160 plans (4 plans for spot size [±10%] and position [±1 mm] errors × 8 scenarios × 5 patients), the average D99% was 4748 cGy(RBE) with the average reduction of 5.0%. The isocentric shift in the superior–inferior direction yielded the least homogenous dose distributions inside the target volume. Conclusion The increasing spot sizes resulted in decreased target coverage and dose homogeneity. Similarly, the decreasing spot sizes led to a loss of target coverage, overdosage, and degradation of dose homogeneity. The addition of spot size and position errors to plan robustness parameters (setup and range uncertainties) increased the target coverage loss and decreased the dose homogeneity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suresh Rana
- Department of Medical Physics, The Oklahoma Proton Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.,Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anatoly B Rosenfeld
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rana S, Rosenfeld AB. Impact of proton dose calculation algorithms on the interplay effect in PBS proton based SBRT lung plans. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2021; 7. [PMID: 34029212 DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/abfea8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2020] [Accepted: 05/06/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the impact of RayStation analytical pencil beam (APB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms on the interplay effect in pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) lung plans.Methods. The currentin-silicoplanning study was designed for a total dose of 5000 cGy(RBE) with a fractional dose of 1000 cGy(RBE). First, three sets of nominal plans were generated for each patient: (a) APB optimization followed by APB dose calculation (PB-PB), (b) APB optimization followed by MC dose calculation (PB-MC), and (c) MC optimization followed by MC dose calculation (MC-MC). Second, for each patient, two sets of volumetric repainting plans (five repaintings) - PB-MCVR5and MC-MCVR5were generated based on PB-MC and MC-MC, respectively. Dosimetric differences between APB and MC algorithms were calculated on the nominal and interplay dose-volume-histograms (DVHs).Results. Interplay evaluation in non-volumetric repainting plans showed that APB algorithm overestimated the target coverage by up to 8.4% for D95%and 10.5% for D99%, whereas in volumetric repainting plans, APB algorithm overestimated by up to 5.3% for D95%and 7.0% for D99%. Interplay results for MC calculations showed a decrease in D95%and D99%by average differences of 3.5% and 4.7%, respectively, in MC-MC plans and by 1.8% and 3.0% in MC-MCVR5plans.Conclusion. In PBS proton-based SBRT lung plans, the combination of APB algorithm and interplay effect reduced the target coverage. This may result in inferior local control. The use of MC algorithm for both optimization and final dose calculations in conjunction with the volumetric repainting technique yielded superior target coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suresh Rana
- Department of Medical Physics, The Oklahoma Proton Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, United States of America.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States of America.,Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Anatoly B Rosenfeld
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Chen H, Li C, Zheng L, Lu W, Li Y, Wei Q. A machine learning-based survival prediction model of high grade glioma by integration of clinical and dose-volume histogram parameters. Cancer Med 2021; 10:2774-2786. [PMID: 33760360 PMCID: PMC8026951 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3838] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 02/23/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Glioma is the most common type of primary brain tumor in adults, and it causes significant morbidity and mortality, especially in high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. The accurate prognostic prediction of HGG is vital and helpful for clinicians when developing therapeutic strategies. Therefore, we propose a machine learning-based survival prediction model by analyzing clinical and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters, to improve the performance of the risk model in HGG patients. METHODS Eight clinical variables and 39 DVH parameters were extracted for each patient, who received radiotherapy for HGG with active follow-up. Ninety-five patients were randomly divided into training and testing cohorts, and we employed random survival forest (RSF), support vector machine (SVM), and Cox proportional hazards (CPHs) models to predict survival. Calibration plots, concordance indexes, and decision curve analyses were used to evaluate the calibration, discrimination, and clinical utility of these three models. RESULTS The RSF model showed the best performance among the three models, with concordance indexes of 0.824 and 0.847 in the training and testing sets, respectively, followed by the SVM (0.792/0.823) and CPH (0.821/0.811) models. Specifically, in the RSF model, we identified age, gross tumor volume (GTV), grade, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH), and D99 as important variables associated with survival. The AUCs of the testing set were 92.4%, 87.7%, and 84.0% for 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival, respectively. According to this model, HGG patients can be divided into high- and low-risk groups. CONCLUSION The machine learning-based RSF model integrating both clinical and DVH variables is an improved and useful tool for predicting the survival of HGG patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haiyan Chen
- Department of Radiation OncologyKey Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and InterventionMinistry of EducationThe Second Affiliated HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouZhejiangChina
- Zhejiang University Cancer CenterHangzhouZhejiangChina
| | - Chao Li
- Department of Radiation OncologyKey Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and InterventionMinistry of EducationThe Second Affiliated HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouZhejiangChina
| | - Lin Zheng
- Department of Radiation OncologyKey Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and InterventionMinistry of EducationThe Second Affiliated HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouZhejiangChina
- Department of Radiation OncologyTaizhou Tumor HospitalTaizhouZhejiangChina
| | - Wei Lu
- Zhejiang University Cancer CenterHangzhouZhejiangChina
- Department of Colorectal Surgery and OncologyKey Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and InterventionMinistry of EducationThe Second Affiliated HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouZhejiangChina
| | - Yanlin Li
- College of ScienceHangzhou Normal UniversityHangzhouZhejiangChina
| | - Qichun Wei
- Department of Radiation OncologyKey Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and InterventionMinistry of EducationThe Second Affiliated HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouZhejiangChina
- Zhejiang University Cancer CenterHangzhouZhejiangChina
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rana S, Rosenfeld AB. Investigating volumetric repainting to mitigate interplay effect on 4D robustly optimized lung cancer plans in pencil beam scanning proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:107-118. [PMID: 33599391 PMCID: PMC7984493 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13183] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2020] [Revised: 12/19/2021] [Accepted: 01/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The interplay effect between dynamic pencil proton beams and motion of the lung tumor presents a challenge in treating lung cancer patients in pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. The main purpose of the current study was to investigate the interplay effect on the volumetric repainting lung plans with beam delivery in alternating order (“down” and “up” directions), and explore the number of volumetric repaintings needed to achieve acceptable lung cancer PBS proton plan. Method The current retrospective study included ten lung cancer patients. The total dose prescription to the clinical target volume (CTV) was 70 Gy(RBE) with a fractional dose of 2 Gy(RBE). All treatment plans were robustly optimized on all ten phases in the 4DCT data set. The Monte Carlo algorithm was used for the 4D robust optimization, as well as for the final dose calculation. The interplay effect was evaluated for both the nominal (i.e., without repainting) as well as volumetric repainting plans. The interplay evaluation was carried out for each of the ten different phases as the starting phases. Several dosimetric metrics were included to evaluate the worst‐case scenario (WCS) and bandwidth based on the results obtained from treatment delivery starting in ten different breathing phases. Results The number of repaintings needed to meet the criteria 1 (CR1) of target coverage (D95% ≥ 98% and D99% ≥ 97%) ranged from 2 to 10. The number of repaintings needed to meet the CR1 of maximum dose (ΔD1% < 1.5%) ranged from 2 to 7. Similarly, the number of repaintings needed to meet CR1 of homogeneity index (ΔHI < 0.03) ranged from 3 to 10. For the target coverage region, the number of repaintings needed to meet CR1 of bandwidth (<100 cGy) ranged from 3 to 10, whereas for the high‐dose region, the number of repaintings needed to meet CR1 of bandwidth (<100 cGy) ranged from 1 to 7. Based on the overall plan evaluation criteria proposed in the current study, acceptable plans were achieved for nine patients, whereas one patient had acceptable plan with a minor deviation. Conclusion The number of repaintings required to mitigate the interplay effect in PBS lung cancer (tumor motion < 15 mm) was found to be highly patient dependent. For the volumetric repainting with an alternating order, a patient‐specific interplay evaluation strategy must be adopted. Determining the optimal number of repaintings based on the bandwidth and WCS approach could mitigate the interplay effect in PBS lung cancer treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suresh Rana
- Department of Medical PhysicsThe Oklahoma Proton CenterOklahoma CityOklahomaUSA
- Department of Radiation OncologyMiami Cancer InstituteBaptist Health South FloridaMiamiFLUSA
- Department of Radiation OncologyHerbert Wertheim College of MedicineFlorida International UniversityMiamiFLUSA
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP)University of WollongongWollongongNSWAustralia
| | - Anatoly B. Rosenfeld
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP)University of WollongongWollongongNSWAustralia
| |
Collapse
|