Modeling tumor control probability for spatially inhomogeneous risk of failure based on clinical outcome data

Assessment of residual geometrical errors of clinical target volumes and their impact on dose accumulation for head and neck radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To assess the residual geometrical errors (dr) and their impact on the clinical target volumes (CTV) dose coverage for head and neck cancer (HNC) proton therapy patients.

METHODS

We analysed 28 HNC patients treated with 70 Gy (RBE) and 54.25 Gy (RBE) to the therapeutic CTV70 and prophylactic CTV54.25, respectively. Daily cone beam CTs were converted to high quality synthetic CTs (sCTs). The CTVs from the nominal CT were propagated to the corresponding sCTs using a hybrid deformable image registration (propagated CTVs) in RayStation 11B. For 11 patients, all propagated CTVs were reviewed by our HNC radiation oncologist (physician corrected CTVs). The residual geometrical error dr was quantified as a function of the daily CTVs volume overlap with the nominal plan CTV. The errors dr(propagated CTVs) and dr(physician corrected CTVs) and the difference in dice similarity coefficients (ΔDSC) were determined. Using clinical plans, dose coverage and the tumor control probability (TCP) for the nominal, accumulated and voxel-wise minimum scenarios were determined.

RESULTS

The difference in the residual geometrical error dr (propagated CTVs - physician corrected CTVs) and mean DSC (|ΔDSC|mean) were minor: Δdr(CTV70) = 0.16 mm, Δdr(CTV54.25) = 0.26 mm, |ΔDSC|mean < 0.9%. For all 28 patients, dr(CTV70) = 1.91 mm and dr(CTV54.25) = 1.90 mm. However, CTV54.25 above and below the cricoid cartilage differed substantially (1.00 mm c.f. 3.93 mm). The CTV54.25 coverage below the cricoid was then almost always lower, although the TCP of the accumulated dose was higher than the TCP of the voxel-wise minimum dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Setup uncertainty setting of 2 mm is possible. The feasibility of using propagated CTVs for error determination is demonstrated.

PTV-based VMAT vs. robust IMPT for head-and-neck cancer: A probabilistic uncertainty analysis of clinical plan evaluation with the Dutch model-based selection

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In the Netherlands, head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients are referred for proton therapy (PT) through model-based selection (MBS). However, treatment errors may compromise adequate CTV dose. Our aims are: (i) to derive probabilistic plan evaluation metrics on the CTV consistent with clinical metrics; (ii) to evaluate plan consistency between photon (VMAT) and proton (IMPT) planning in terms of CTV dose iso-effectiveness and (iii) to assess the robustness of the OAR doses and of the risk toxicities involved in the MBS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty HNC plans (30 IMPT/30 VMAT) were included. A robustness evaluation with 100,000 treatment scenarios per plan was performed using Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE). PCE was applied to determine scenario distributions of clinically relevant dosimetric parameters, which were compared between the 2 modalities. Finally, PCE-based probabilistic dose parameters were derived and compared to clinical PTV-based photon and voxel-wise proton evaluation metrics.

RESULTS

Probabilistic dose to near-minimum volume v = 99.8% for the CTV correlated best with clinical PTV-D98% and VWmin-D98%,CTV doses for VMAT and IMPT respectively. IMPT showed slightly higher nominal CTV doses, with an average increase of 0.8 GyRBE in the median of the D99.8%,CTV distribution. Most patients qualified for IMPT through the dysphagia grade II model, for which an average NTCP gain of 10.5 percentages points (%-point) was found. For all complications, uncertainties resulted in moderate NTCP spreads lower than 3 p.p. on average for both modalities.

CONCLUSION

Despite the differences between photon and proton planning, the comparison between PTV-based VMAT and robust IMPT is consistent. Treatment errors had a moderate impact on NTCPs, showing that the nominal plans are a good estimator to qualify patients for PT.

Head and neck IMPT probabilistic dose accumulation: Feasibility of a 2 mm setup uncertainty setting

OBJECTIVE

To establish optimal robust optimization uncertainty settings for clinical head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing 3D image-guided pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy.

METHODS

We analyzed ten consecutive HNC patients treated with 70 and 54.25 Gy_RBE to the primary and prophylactic clinical target volumes (CTV) respectively using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Clinical plans were generated using robust optimization with 5 mm/3% setup/range uncertainties (RayStation v6.1). Additional plans were created for 4, 3, 2 and 1 mm setup and 3% range uncertainty and for 3 mm setup and 3%, 2% and 1% range uncertainty. Systematic and random error distributions were determined for setup and range uncertainties based on our quality assurance program. From these, 25 treatment scenarios were sampled for each plan, each consisting of a systematic setup and range error and daily random setup errors. Fraction doses were calculated on the weekly verification CT closest to the date of treatment as this was considered representative of the daily patient anatomy.

RESULTS

Plans with a 2 mm/3% setup/range uncertainty setting adequately covered the primary and prophylactic CTV (V₉₅ ≥ 99% in 98.8% and 90.8% of the treatment scenarios respectively). The average organ-at-risk dose decreased with 1.1 Gy_RBE/mm setup uncertainty reduction and 0.5 Gy_RBE/1% range uncertainty reduction. Normal tissue complication probabilities decreased by 2.0%/mm setup uncertainty reduction and by 0.9%/1% range uncertainty reduction.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that margin reduction below 3 mm/3% is possible but requires a larger cohort to substantiate clinical introduction.