Dosimetric Effects of Setup Uncertainties on Breast Treatment Delivery

A retrospective study on improving the accuracy of radiotherapy for patients with breast cancer with lymph node metastasis using Styrofoam

BACKGROUND

To retrospectively analyze the accuracy of radiotherapy using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Styrofoam fixation, and breast bracket fixation in the chest wall target area and supraclavicular lymphatic drainage area (supraclavicular target area) of patients with breast cancer.and compare the setting efficiency and comfort satisfaction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 65 patients with postoperative lymphatic metastasis of breast cancer, including 36 cases of Styrofoam fixation and 29 cases of breast bracket fixation, were recruited from March 2021 to August 2022 and retrospectively analyzed. All the patients underwent CBCT scans weekly, and the setup errors of the chest wall and supraclavicular target volume were compared and recorded. The planning target volume (PTV) margins of the two groups were calculated using the correlation MPTV = 2.5Σ + 0.7σ. The setup time and comfort satisfaction scores of the two groups were recorded and analyzed. The correlations among errors in each direction were analyzed using the Pearson correlation analysis.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in the left-right direction (X) axis of the chest wall target area between the Styrofoam and breast bracket groups (1.59 ± 1.47 mm vs. 2.05 ± 1.64 mm, P = 0.012). There were statistical differences in the ventrodorsal direction (Z) and bed angle of the supraclavicular target area, the data were (1.36 ± 1.27 mm vs. 1.75 ± 1.55 mm, P = 0.046; 0.47 ± 0.47° vs. 0.66 ± 0.59°, P = 0.006, respectively). In the X, Y, and Z directions, the respective PTV margins of the two groups in the chest wall target area were 5.01 mm, 5.99 mm, and 5.47 mm in the Styrofoam group, while those in the breast bracket group were 6.10 mm, 6.34 mm, and 6.10 mm, respectively. Moreover, the PTV margins of the supraclavicular target in the three directions were 3.69 mm, 3.86 mm, and 4.28 mm in the Styrofoam group, while those in the breast bracket group were 3.99 mm, 3.72 mm, and 5.45 mm, respectively. The setup time of the two groups was 3.4 ± 1.1 min and 5.5 ± 3.1 min (P = 0.007). The subjective comfort satisfaction scores of the two groups were 27.50 ± 1.24 and 25.44 ± 1.23 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The application of Styrofoam fixation in radiotherapy of breast cancer in the supraclavicular lymph node area has several advantages as compared to breast bracket fixation, including higher positioning accuracy, smaller external expansion boundary, improved work efficiency, and patients' comfort, which might provide a reference for clinical work.

Dosimetric effect of rotational setup errors in volumetric modulated arc therapy and field-in-field treatment of left-sided breast cancer

Setup errors are an important factor in the dosimetric accuracy of radiotherapy delivery. In this study, we investigated how rotational setup errors influence the dose distribution in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and tangential field-in-field (FiF) treatment of left-sided breast cancer with supraclavicular lymph node involvement in deep inspiration breath hold. Treatment planning computed tomography images and radiotherapy plans of 20 patients were collected retrospectively for the study. Rotational setup errors up to 3° were simulated by rotating the planning images, and the resulting dosimetric changes were calculated. With rotational setup errors up to 3°, the median decrease of V95% to clinical target volume was less than 0.8 percentage point in both VMAT and FiF plans. The dose distribution of the heart and left anterior descending artery was more stable with respect to rotations in VMAT plans compared to FiF plans. Correction of ≥1° setup errors is recommended due to increased doses to the heart and left anterior descending artery after 1° setup errors.

In Silico Studies of the Impact of Rotational Errors on Translation Shifts and Dose Distribution in Image-Guided Radiotherapy

Objective: To compare the 6-dimensional errors of different immobilization devices and body regions based on 3-dimensional cone beam computed tomography for image-guided radiotherapy and to further quantitatively evaluate the impact of rotational corrections on translational shifts and dose distribution based on anthropomorphic phantoms. Materials and Methods: Two hundred ninety patients with cone beam computed tomographies from 3835 fractions were retrospectively analyzed for brain, head & neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and breast cases. A phantom experiment was conducted to investigate the impact of rotational errors on translational shifts using cone beam computed tomography and the registration system. For the dosimetry study, pitch rotations were simulated by adjusting the breast bracket by ±2.5°. Roll and yaw rotations were simulated by rotating the gantry and couch in the planning system by ±3.0°, respectively. The original plan for the breast region was designed in the computed tomography image space without rotation. With the same planning parameters, the original plan was transplanted into the image space with different rotations for dose recalculation. The effect of these errors on the breast target and organs at risk was assessed by dose-volume histograms. Results: Most of the mean rotational errors in the breast region were >1°. A single uncorrected yaw of 3° caused a change of 2.9 mm in longitudinal translation. A phantom study for the breast region demonstrated that when the pitch rotations were -2.5° and 2.5° and roll and yaw were both 3°, the reductions in the planning target volumes-V_{50 Gy} were 20.07% and 29.58% of the original values, respectively. When the pitch rotation was +2.5°, the left lung V_{5 Gy} and heart Dmean were 7.49% and 165.76 Gy larger, respectively, than the original values. Conclusions: Uncorrected rotations may cause changes in the values and directions of translational shifts. Rotational corrections may improve the patient setup and dose distribution accuracy.

Analysis of local setup errors of sub-regions in cone-beam CT-guided post-mastectomy radiation therapy

The purpose of the study was to quantify local setup errors and evaluate the planning target volume (PTV) margins for sub-regions in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). The local setup errors of 20 patients undergoing CBCT-guided PMRT were analysed retrospectively. Image registration between CBCT and planning CT was performed using four sub-regions of interest (ROIs): the supraclavicular area (S_ROI), ipsilateral chest wall region (C_ROI), ipsilateral chest wall plus supraclavicular region (S_ROI + C_ROI) and vertebral region (T_ROI). Bland–Altman analysis, correlation, local setup errors and PTV margins among these ROIs were evaluated. There was no significant consistency or correlation for registration results between the T_ROI and the C_ROI or S_ROI regions on any translational axis. When using the S_ROI + C_ROI as the ROI, the systematic error (Σ) and random error (σ) of the local setup errors for the C_ROI region were 1.81, 1.19 and 1.76 mm and 1.84, 2.64 and 3.00 mm along the medial–lateral (ML), superior–inferior (SI) and anterior–posterior (AP) directions, respectively. The PTV margins for the C_ROI region were 5.80, 4.82 and 6.50 mm. The Σ and σ of the local setup errors for the S_ROI region were 1.29, 1.15 and 0.77 mm and 1.96, 2.65 and 2.2 mm, respectively, and the PTV margins were 4.59, 4.73 and 3.47 mm. Large setup errors and local setup errors occur in PMRT. The vertebral body should not be a position surrogate for the supraclavicular region or chest wall. To compensate for the local setup errors, different PTV margins are required, even with CBCT guidance.

Dosimetric consequences of image guidance techniques on robust optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy for treatment of breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the consequences of residual setup error on target dose distribution using various image registration strategies for breast cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 11 post-lumpectomy patients who received IMPT, 44 dose distributions were computed. For each patient, the original plan (Plan-O) and three verification plans were calculated using different alignments: bony anatomy (VPlan-B), breast tissue (VPlan-T), and skin (VPlan-S). The target coverage were evaluated for each alignment technique. Additionally, 2 subvolumes-BreastNearSkin (1-cm rim of anterior CTV) and BreastNearCW (1-cm rim of posterior CTV)-were created to help localize CTV underdosing. Furthermore, we divided the setup error into the posture error and breast error. Patients with a large posture error and those with good posture setup but a large breast error were identified to evaluate the effect of posture error and breast error.

RESULTS

For Plan-O, VPlan-B, VPlan-T, and VPlan-S, respectively, the median (interquartile range) breast CTV D95 was 95.7%(94.7-96.3%), 95.1% (93.9-95.7%), 95.2% (94.8-95.6%), and 95.2% (94.9-95.7%); BreastNearCW D95 was 96.9% (95.6-97.3%), 94.8% (93.5-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.0%), 95.6% (94.8-97.1%); and BreastNearSkin D95 was 94.1% (92.7-94.4%), 93.6% (92.2-94.5%), 93.5% (92.4-94.5%), and 94.4% (92.2-94.5%) of the prescription dose. 4/11 patients had ≥1% decrease in breast CTV D95, 1 of whom developed breast edema while the other 3 all had a > 2^o posture error. The CTV D95 variation was within 1% for the patients with good posture setup but >2^o breast error.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable target coverage was achieved with all three alignment strategies. Breast tissue and skin alignment maintained the breast target coverage marginally better than bony alignment, with which the posterior CTV along the chest wall is the predominant area affected by under-dosing. For target dose distribution, posture error appears more influential than breast error.

Evaluation of a 3D surface imaging system for deep inspiration breath-hold patient positioning and intra-fraction monitoring

PURPOSE

To determine the accuracy of a surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for positioning of breast cancer patients in breath-hold (BH) with respect to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Secondly, to evaluate the thorax position stability during BHs with SGRT, when using an air-volume guidance system.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eighteen left-sided breast cancer patients were monitored with SGRT during CBCT and treatment, both in BH. CBCT scans were matched on the target volume and the patient surface. The setup error differences were evaluated, including with linear regression analysis. The intra-fraction variability and stability of the air-volume guided BHs were determined from SGRT measurements. The variability was determined from the maximum difference between the different BH levels within one treatment fraction. The stability was determined from the difference between the start and end position of each BH.

RESULTS

SGRT data correlated well with CBCT data. The correlation was stronger for surface-to-CBCT (0.61) than target volume-to-CBCT (0.44) matches. Systematic and random setup error differences were ≤ 2 mm in all directions. The 95% limits of agreement (mean ± 2SD) were 0.1 ± 3.0, 0.6 ± 4.1 and 0.4 ± 3.4 mm in the three orthogonal directions, for the surface-to-CBCT matches. For air-volume guided BHs, the variability detected with SGRT was 2.2, 2.8 and 2.3 mm, and the stability - 1.0, 2.1 and 1.5 mm, in three orthogonal directions. Furthermore, the SGRT system could detect unexpected patient movement, undetectable by the air-volume BH system.

CONCLUSION

With SGRT, left-sided breast cancer patients can be positioned and monitored continuously to maintain position errors within 5 mm. Low intra-fraction variability and good stability can be achieved with the air-volume BH system, however, additional patient position information is available with SGRT, that cannot be detected with air-volume BH systems.

MRI geometric distortion: Impact on tangential whole-breast IMRT

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) geometric distortions when using MRI for target delineation and planning for whole-breast, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Residual system distortions and combined systematic and patient-induced distortions are considered. This retrospective study investigated 18 patients who underwent whole-breast external beam radiotherapy, where both CT and MRIs were acquired for treatment planning. Distortion phantoms were imaged on two MRI systems, dedicated to radiotherapy planning (a wide, closed-bore 3T and an open-bore 1T). Patient scans were acquired on the 3T system. To simulate MRI-based planning, distortion maps representing residual system distortions were generated via deformable registration between phantom CT and MRIs. Patient CT images and structures were altered to match the residual system distortion measured by the phantoms on each scanner. The patient CTs were also registered to the corresponding patient MRI scans, to assess patient and residual system effects. Tangential IMRT plans were generated and optimized on each resulting CT dataset, then propagated to the original patient CT space. The resulting dose distributions were then evaluated with respect to the standard clinically acceptable DVH and visual assessment criteria. Maximum residual systematic distortion was measured to be 7.9 mm (95%<4.7mm) and 11.9 mm (95%<4.6mm) for the 3T and 1T scanners, respectively, which did not result in clinically unacceptable plans. Eight of the plans accounting for patient and systematic distortions were deemed clinically unacceptable when assessed on the original CT. For these plans, the mean difference in PTV V95 (volume receiving 95% prescription dose) was 0.13±2.51% and -0.73±1.93% for right- and left-sided patients, respectively. Residual system distortions alone had minimal impact on the dosimetry for the two scanners investigated. The combination of MRI systematic and patient-related distortions can result in unacceptable dosimetry for whole-breast IMRT, a potential issue when considering MRI-only radiotherapy treatment planning. PACS number(s): 87.61.-c, 87.57.cp, 87.57.nj, 87.55.D.