Separating the dosimetric consequences of changing tumor anatomy from positional uncertainty for conventionally fractionated lung cancer patients

Implementation of free breathing respiratory amplitude-gated treatments

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to provide guidance in developing and implementing a process for the accurate delivery of free breathing respiratory amplitude‐gated treatments.

Methods

A phase‐based 4DCT scan is acquired at time of simulation and motion is evaluated to determine the exhale phases that minimize respiratory motion to an acceptable level. A phase subset average CT is then generated for treatment planning and a tracking structure is contoured to indicate the location of the target or a suitable surrogate over the planning phases. Prior to treatment delivery, a 4DCBCT is acquired and a phase subset average is created to coincide with the planning phases for an initial match to the planning CT. Fluoroscopic imaging is then used to set amplitude gate thresholds corresponding to when the target or surrogate is in the tracking structure. The final imaging prior to treatment is an amplitude‐gated CBCT to verify both the amplitude gate thresholds and patient positioning. An amplitude‐gated treatment is then delivered. This technique was commissioned using an in‐house lung motion phantom and film measurements of a simple two‐field 3D plan.

Results

The accuracy of 4DCBCT motion and target position measurements were validated relative to 4DCT imaging. End to end testing showed strong agreement between planned and film measured dose distributions. Robustness to interuser variability and changes in respiratory motion were demonstrated through film measurements.

Conclusions

The developed workflow utilizes 4DCBCT, respiratory‐correlated fluoroscopy, and gated CBCT imaging in an efficient and sequential process to ensure the accurate delivery of free breathing respiratory‐gated treatments.

Highly efficient and sensitive patient-specific quality assurance for spot-scanned proton therapy

The purpose of this work was to develop an end-to-end patient-specific quality assurance (QA) technique for spot-scanned proton therapy that is more sensitive and efficient than traditional approaches. The patient-specific methodology relies on independently verifying the accuracy of the delivered proton fluence and the dose calculation in the heterogeneous patient volume. A Monte Carlo dose calculation engine, which was developed in-house, recalculates a planned dose distribution on the patient CT data set to verify the dose distribution represented by the treatment planning system. The plan is then delivered in a pre-treatment setting and logs of spot position and dose monitors, which are integrated into the treatment nozzle, are recorded. A computational routine compares the delivery log to the DICOM spot map used by the Monte Carlo calculation to ensure that the delivered parameters at the machine match the calculated plan. Measurements of dose planes using independent detector arrays, which historically are the standard approach to patient-specific QA, are not performed for every patient. The nozzle-integrated detectors are rigorously validated using independent detectors in regular QA intervals. The measured data are compared to the expected delivery patterns. The dose monitor reading deviations are reported in a histogram, while the spot position discrepancies are plotted vs. spot number to facilitate independent analysis of both random and systematic deviations. Action thresholds are linked to accuracy of the commissioned delivery system. Even when plan delivery is acceptable, the Monte Carlo second check system has identified dose calculation issues which would not have been illuminated using traditional, phantom-based measurement techniques. The efficiency and sensitivity of our patient-specific QA program has been improved by implementing a procedure which independently verifies patient dose calculation accuracy and plan delivery fidelity. Such an approach to QA requires holistic integration and maintenance of patient-specific and patient-independent QA.

Effect of atelectasis changes on tissue mass and dose during lung radiotherapy

Purpose:

To characterize mass and density changes of lung parenchyma in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients following midtreatment resolution of atelectasis and to quantify the impact this large geometric change has on normal tissue dose.

Methods:

Baseline and midtreatment CT images and contours were obtained for 18 NSCLC patients with atelectasis. Patients were classified based on atelectasis volume reduction between the two scans as having either full, partial, or no resolution. Relative mass and density changes from baseline to midtreatment were calculated based on voxel intensity and volume for each lung lobe. Patients also had clinical treatment plans available which were used to assess changes in normal tissue dose constraints from baseline to midtreatment. The midtreatment image was rigidly aligned with the baseline scan in two ways: (1) bony anatomy and (2) carina. Treatment parameters (beam apertures, weights, angles, monitor units, etc.) were transferred to each image. Then, dose was recalculated. Typical IMRT dose constraints were evaluated on all images, and the changes from baseline to each midtreatment image were investigated.

Results:

Atelectatic lobes experienced mean (stdev) mass changes of −2.8% (36.6%), −24.4% (33.0%), and −9.2% (17.5%) and density changes of −66.0% (6.4%), −25.6% (13.6%), and −17.0% (21.1%) for full, partial, and no resolution, respectively. Means (stdev) of dose changes to spinal cord D_max, esophagus D_mean, and lungs D_mean were 0.67 (2.99), 0.99 (2.69), and 0.50 Gy (2.05 Gy), respectively, for bone alignment and 0.14 (1.80), 0.77 (2.95), and 0.06 Gy (1.71 Gy) for carina alignment. Dose increases with bone alignment up to 10.93, 7.92, and 5.69 Gy were found for maximum spinal cord, mean esophagus, and mean lung doses, respectively, with carina alignment yielding similar values. 44% and 22% of patients had at least one metric change by at least 5 Gy (dose metrics) or 5% (volume metrics) for bone and carina alignments, respectively. Investigation of GTV coverage showed mean (stdev) changes in V_Rx, D_max, and D_min of −5.5% (13.5%), 2.5% (4.2%), and 0.8% (8.9%), respectively, for bone alignment with similar results for carina alignment.

Conclusions:

Resolution of atelectasis caused mass and density decreases, on average, and introduced substantial changes in normal tissue dose metrics in a subset of the patient cohort.

Effect of variations in atelectasis on tumor displacement during radiation therapy for locally advanced lung cancer

Purpose

Atelectasis (AT), or collapsed lung, is frequently associated with central lung tumors. We investigated the variation of atelectasis volumes during radiation therapy and analyzed the effect of AT volume changes on the reproducibility of the primary tumor (PT) position.

Methods and materials

Twelve patients with lung cancer who had AT and 10 patients without AT underwent repeated 4-dimensional fan beam computed tomography (CT) scans during radiation therapy per protocols that were approved by the institutional review board. Interfraction volume changes of AT and PT were correlated with PT displacements relative to bony anatomy using both a bounding box (BB) method and change in center of mass (COM). Linear regression modeling was used to determine whether PT and AT volume changes were independently associated with PT displacement. PT displacement was compared between patients with and without AT.

Results

The mean initial AT volume on the planning CT was 189 cm³ (37-513 cm³), and the mean PT volume was 93 cm³ (12-176 cm³). During radiation therapy, AT and PT volumes decreased on average 136.7 cm³ (20-369 cm³) for AT and 40 cm³ (−7 to 131 cm³) for PT. Eighty-three percent of patients with AT had at least one unidirectional PT shift that was greater than 0.5 cm outside of the initial BB during treatment. In patients with AT, the maximum PT COM shift was ≥0.5 cm in all patients and >1 cm in 58% of patients (0.5-2.4 cm). Changes in PT and AT volumes were independently associated with PT displacement (P < .01), and the correlation was smaller with COM (R² = 0.58) compared with the BB method (R² = 0.80). The median root mean squared PT displacement with the BB method was significantly less for patients without AT (0.45 cm) compared with those with AT (0.8cm, P = .002).

Conclusions

Changes in AT and PT volumes during radiation treatment were significantly associated with PT displacements that often exceeded standard setup margins. Repeated 3-dimensional imaging is recommended in patients with AT to evaluate for PT displacements during treatment.