1
|
Yamashita M, Ohira S, Tanabe H, Kokubo M, Koizumi M. Correlation Between Dosimetric Parameters and Local Control in Definitive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancers. In Vivo 2024; 38:819-825. [PMID: 38418123 PMCID: PMC10905467 DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13506] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2023] [Revised: 12/06/2023] [Accepted: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 03/01/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM Radiotherapy (RT) outcomes are generally reported based on stage, patient background, and concomitant chemotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the prescribed dose to gross tumor volume (GTV) and the calculation algorithm on local control in definitive RT for head and neck (H&N) cancers using follow-up images after RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study included 154 patients with H&N cancers treated by Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy at the Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital. Patients were classified into those receiving definitive RT (70 Gy of irradiation) and those not receiving it. Follow-up images were used to categorize the patients into the responders and non-responders groups. In the non-responders group, follow-up images were imported into the treatment planning system, and the contours of the residual or recurrent areas (local failure) were extracted and fused with computed tomography-simulated images for treatment planning. Dose evaluation parameters included maximum dose, dose administered to 1% of the volume, dose administered to 50% of the volume, dose administered to 99% of the volume (D99%), and minimum dose (Dmin) administered to the GTV. The doses to the GTV were compared between responders and non-responders. RESULTS D99% exhibited significant differences between local failure and responders and between local failure and non-responders. Dmin showed significant differences between responders and non-responders and between responders and local failure. CONCLUSION This study emphasizes the importance of verifying dose distribution in all slices of treatment planning, highlighting the need for precise assessment of the dose to the GTV in head and neck cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikiko Yamashita
- Department of Radiological Technology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Hyogo, Japan;
- Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Shingo Ohira
- Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
- Department of Comprehensive Radiation Oncology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroaki Tanabe
- Department of Radiological Technology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Masaki Kokubo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Masahiko Koizumi
- Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wang L, Zhang J, Huang M, Xu B, Li X. Radiobiological Comparison of Acuros External Beam and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm on Esophageal Carcinoma Radiotherapy Treatment Plans. Dose Response 2022; 20:15593258221105678. [PMID: 35832770 PMCID: PMC9272482 DOI: 10.1177/15593258221105678] [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] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective The present study aimed to investigate the dose differences and
radiobiological assessment between Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA)
and Acuros External Beam (AXB) with its 2 calculation models, namely,
dose-to-water (AXB-Dw) and dose-to-medium (AXB-Dm), on esophageal carcinoma
radiotherapy treatment plans. Materials and methods The AXB-Dw and AXB-Dm plans were generated by recalculating the initial 66
AAA plans using the AXB algorithm with the same monitor units and beam
parameters as those in the original plan. The dosimetric and radiobiological
assessment parameters were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV)
and organs at risk (OARs). The gamma agreement for the PTV and the
correlation between it and the volume of the air cavity and bone among the
different algorithms were compared simultaneously. The dose discrepancy
between the theoretical calculation and treatment planning system (TPS) when
switching from AXB-Dm to AXB-Dw was analyzed according to the composition of
the structures. Results The PTV dose of AXB-Dm plans was significantly smaller than that of the AAA
and AXB-Dw plans (P < .05), except for D2. The difference
values for AAA vs AXB-Dm (∆Dx,(AAA-AXB,Dm)) and
AXB-Dw vs AXB-Dm (∆Dx,(AXB,Dw-AXB,Dm)) were
1.94% [1.27%, 2.64%] and 1.95% [1.56%, 2.27%], respectively. For the spinal
cord and heart, there were obvious differences between the AAA vs AXB-Dm
(spinal cord: 1.15%, heart: 2.89%) and AXB-Dw vs AXB-Dm (spinal cord: 1.88%,
heart: 3.25%) plans. For the lung, the differences between AAA vs AXB-Dm and
AAA vs AXB-Dw were significantly larger than those of AXB-Dm vs AXB-Dw.
Compared to the case of AAA and AXB-Dw, the decrease in biologically
effective dose (BED10, αβ=10 ) of AXB-Dm due to dose non-uniformity exceeded 6.5%, even
for a small σ. The average values of equivalent uniform dose in the AAA,
AXB-Dw, and AXB-Dm plans were 52.03±.39 Gy, 52.24 ± .81 Gy, and 51.13 ±
.47 Gy, respectively. The tumor control probability (TCP) results for PTV in
the AAA, AXB-Dw, and AXB-Dm plans were 62.29 ± 1.57%, 62.82 ± 1.69%, and
58.68±1.88%, respectively. With the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria,
the mean values of ΔγAAAAXB−Dw, ΔγAAAAXB−Dm, and ΔγAXB−DmAXB−Dw were 87.24, 63.3, and 64.81% vs 97.86, 91.77, and 89.25%,
respectively. The dose discrepancy between the theoretical calculation and
TPS when switching from AXB-Dm to AXB-Dw was approximately 1.63%. Conclusions The AAA and AXB-Dw algorithms overestimated the radiobiological parameters
when the tumor particularly consisted of nonuniform tissues. A relatively
small dose difference could cause a significant reduction in the
corresponding TCP. Dose distribution algorithms should be carefully chosen
by physicists and oncologists to improve tumor control, as well as to
optimize OARs protection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lin Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of Medical Imaging Technology, College of Medical Technology and Engineering, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Intelligent Imaging and Precision Radiotherapy for Tumors, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Clinical Research Center for Radiology and Radiotherapy of Fujian Province Digestive, Hematological and Breast Malignancies, Fuzhou, China
| | - Jianping Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of Medical Imaging Technology, College of Medical Technology and Engineering, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Intelligent Imaging and Precision Radiotherapy for Tumors, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Clinical Research Center for Radiology and Radiotherapy of Fujian Province Digestive, Hematological and Breast Malignancies, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Medical University Union Clinical Medicine College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Miaoyun Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Intelligent Imaging and Precision Radiotherapy for Tumors, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Clinical Research Center for Radiology and Radiotherapy of Fujian Province Digestive, Hematological and Breast Malignancies, Fuzhou, China
| | - Benhua Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of Medical Imaging Technology, College of Medical Technology and Engineering, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Intelligent Imaging and Precision Radiotherapy for Tumors, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Clinical Research Center for Radiology and Radiotherapy of Fujian Province Digestive, Hematological and Breast Malignancies, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Medical University Union Clinical Medicine College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| | - Xiaobo Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.,Department of Medical Imaging Technology, College of Medical Technology and Engineering, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Key Laboratory of Intelligent Imaging and Precision Radiotherapy for Tumors, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.,Clinical Research Center for Radiology and Radiotherapy of Fujian Province Digestive, Hematological and Breast Malignancies, Fuzhou, China.,Fujian Medical University Union Clinical Medicine College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Srivastava RP, Basta K, De Gersem W, De Wagter C. A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy. REPORTS OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY AND RADIOTHERAPY : JOURNAL OF GREATPOLAND CANCER CENTER IN POZNAN AND POLISH SOCIETY OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2021; 26:481-488. [PMID: 34277105 PMCID: PMC8281916 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2021.0050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2020] [Accepted: 02/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Background This study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA ) calculations for prostate, head and neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT ), without primary modification to AA. At present, the well-known and validated AA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm. Materials and method Ninety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXBw and dose-to-medium, AXBm), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OA R). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius®-4D phantom for different algorithms. Results The relative differences among AA, AXBw and AXBm, with respect to prostate, head and neck were less than 1% for PTV D95%. However, PTV D95% calculated by AA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXBw and AA, AXBm and AA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AA and AXBm, respectively. Conclusion This study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXBm algorithm is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AA to AXB does not require extra measurements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raju P Srivastava
- Radiotherapy Association Meuse Picardie, Centre Hospitalier Mouscron, Mouscron, Belgium.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - K Basta
- Radiotherapy Association Meuse Picardie, Centre Hospitalier Mouscron, Mouscron, Belgium
| | - Werner De Gersem
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.,Department of Radiation Oncology and Experimental Cancer Research, Ghent University, Belgium
| | - Carlos De Wagter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.,Department of Radiation Oncology and Experimental Cancer Research, Ghent University, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|