Series model volume effects in a population of non-identical patients: how low is low?

Comparison of the helical tomotherapy against the multileaf collimator-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3D conformal radiation modalities in lung cancer radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy and the two different forms of IMRT in lung cancer radiotherapy.

METHODS

Cases of four lung cancer patients were investigated by developing a 3D conformal treatment plan, a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and an HT plan for each case. With the use of the complication-free tumour control probability (P(+)) index and the uniform dose concept as the common prescription point of the plans, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures.

RESULTS

The applied plan evaluation method shows the MLC-based IMRT and the HT treatment plans are almost equivalent over the clinically useful dose prescription range; however, the 3D conformal plan inferior. At the optimal dose levels, the 3D conformal treatment plans give an average P(+) of 48.1% for a effective uniform dose to the internal target volume (ITV) of 62.4 Gy, whereas the corresponding MLC-based IMRT treatment plans are more effective by an average ΔP(+) of 27.0% for a Δ effective uniform dose of 16.3 Gy. Similarly, the HT treatment plans are more effective than the 3D-conformal plans by an average ΔP(+) of 23.8% for a Δ effective uniform dose of 11.6 Gy.

CONCLUSION

A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumours and normal tissues. The use of P - effective uniform dose diagrams can complement the traditional tools of evaluation to compare and effectively evaluate different treatment plans.

Expected clinical impact of the differences between planned and delivered dose distributions in helical tomotherapy for treating head and neck cancer using helical megavoltage CT images

Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has become increasingly popular over the past few years. However, its clinical efficacy and effectiveness continues to be investigated. Pre-treatment patient repositioning in highly conformal image-guided radiation therapy modalities is a prerequisite for reducing setup uncertainties. A MVCT image set has to be acquired to account for daily changes in the patient's internal anatomy and setup position. Furthermore, a comparison should be performed to the kVCT study used for dosimetric planning, by a registration process which results in repositioning the patient according to specific transitional and rotational shifts. Different image registration techniques may lead to different repositioning of the patient and, as a result, to varying delivered doses. This study aims to investigate the expected effect of patient setup correction using the Hi-Art tomotherapy system by employing radiobiological measures such as the biologically effective uniform dose (BEUD) and the complication-free tumor control probability (P+). In this study, a typical case of lung cancer with metastatic head & neck disease was investigated by developing a Helical Tomotherapy plan. For the Tomotherapy HiArt plan, the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used. Three dose distributions (planned and delivered with and without patient setup correction) were compared based on radiobiological measures by using the P+ index and the BEUD concept as the common prescription point of the plans and plotting the tissue response probabilities against the mean target dose for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in this cancer case the planned and delivered dose distributions with and without patient setup correction give a P+ of 81.6%, 80.9% and 72.2%, for a BEUD to the planning target volume (PTV) of 78.0Gy, 77.7Gy and 75.4Gy, respectively. The corresponding tumor control probabilities are 86.3%, 85.1% and 75.1%, whereas the total complication probabilities are 4.64%, 4.20% and 2.89%, respectively. HT can encompass the often large PTV required while minimizing the volume of the organs at risk receiving high dose. However, the effectiveness of a HT treatment plan can be considerably deteriorated if an accurate patient setup system is not available. Taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues, a radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can be performed, which may provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome. In such situations, for effective evaluation and comparison of different treatment plans, traditional dose based evaluation tools can be complemented by the use of P+,BEUD diagrams.

Comparison of the helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT radiation modalities in treating brain and cranio-spinal tumors

The investigation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) using Multileaf Collimators (MLC) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has been an issue of increasing interest over the past few years. In order to assess the suitability of a treatment plan, dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the dose distribution are typically used. Nevertheless, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumors and normal tissues are often not taken into account. The use of the biologically effective uniform dose (D=) together with the complication-free tumor control probability (P(+)) were applied to evaluate the two radiation modalities. Two different clinical cases of brain and cranio-spinal axis cancers have been investigated by developing a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a Helical Tomotherapy plan. The treatment plans of the MLC-based IMRT were developed on the Philips treatment planning station using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release while the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used for the HT plan. With the use of the P(+) index and the D(=) concept as the common prescription point, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures. The tissue response probabilities were plotted against D(=) for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the brain cancer, the HT treatment gives slightly better results than the MLC-based IMRT in terms of optimum expected clinical outcome (P(+) of 66.1% and 63.5% for a D(=) to the PTV of 63.0 Gy and 62.0 Gy, respectively). In the cranio-spinal axis cancer, the HT plan is significantly better compared to the MLC-based IMRT plan over the clinically useful dose prescription range (P(+) of 84.1% and 28.3% for a D(=) to the PTV of 50.6 Gy and 44.0 Gy, respectively). If a higher than 5% risk for complications could be allowed, the complication-free tumor control could be increased by almost 30% compared to the initial dose prescription. In comparison to MLC based-IMRT, HT can better encompass the often large PTV while minimizing the volume of the OARs receiving high dose. A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues. The use of P - (D=) diagrams can complement the traditional tools of evaluation such as DVHs, in order to compare and effectively evaluate different treatment plans.

Treatment plan comparison between helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT using radiobiological measures

The rapid implementation of advanced treatment planning and delivery technologies for radiation therapy has brought new challenges in evaluating the most effective treatment modality. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using multi-leaf collimators (MLC) and helical tomotherapy (HT) are becoming popular modes of treatment delivery and their application and effectiveness continues to be investigated. Presently, there are several treatment planning systems (TPS) that can generate and optimize IMRT plans based on user-defined objective functions for the internal target volume (ITV) and organs at risk (OAR). However, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumours and normal tissues are typically not taken into account during dose prescription and optimization of a treatment plan or during plan evaluation. The suitability of a treatment plan is typically decided based on dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation of the dose distribution. For a more comprehensive treatment plan evaluation, the biologically effective uniform dose (D) is applied together with the complication-free tumour control probability (P(+)). Its utilization is demonstrated using three clinical cases that were planned with two different forms of IMRT. In this study, three different cancer types at different anatomical sites were investigated: head and neck, lung and prostate cancers. For each cancer type, a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a HT plan were developed. The MLC-based IMRT treatment plans were developed on the Philips treatment-planning platform, using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release. For the tomotherapy HiArt plans, the dedicated tomotherapy treatment planning station was used, running version 2.1.2. By using D as the common prescription point of the treatment plans and plotting the tissue response probabilities versus D for a range of prescription doses, a number of plan trials can be compared based on radiobiological measures. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the head and neck cancer case the HT treatment gives better results than MLC-based IMRT in terms of expected clinical outcome P(+) of 62.2% and 46.0%, D to the ITV of 72.3 Gy and 70.7 Gy, respectively). In the lung cancer and prostate cancer cases, the MLC-based IMRT plans are better over the clinically useful dose prescription range. For the lung cancer case, the HT and MLC-based IMRT plans give a P(+) of 66.9% and 72.9%, D to the ITV of 64.0 Gy and 66.9 Gy, respectively. Similarly, for the prostate cancer case, the two radiation modalities give a P(+) of 68.7% and 72.2%, D to the ITV of 86.0 Gy and 85.9 Gy, respectively. If a higher risk of complications (higher than 5%) could be allowed, the complication-free tumour control could increase by over 40%, 2% and 30% compared to the initial dose prescription for the three cancer cases, respectively. Both MLC-based IMRT and HT can encompass the often-large ITV required while they minimize the volume of the organs at risk receiving high doses. Radiobiological evaluation of treatment plans may provide an improved correlation of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response characteristics of the irradiated targets and normal tissues. There may exist clinical cases, which may look dosimetrically similar but in radiobiological terms may be quite different. In such situations, traditional dose-based evaluation tools can be complemented by the use of P(+)--D diagrams to effectively evaluate and compare treatment plans.

Series model volume effects in a population of non-identical patients: how low is low?

Working with several mechanisms of critical local tissue damage, formulae are analytically derived that describe normal tissue complication probabilities (ntcps) for series-type radiotherapy complications arising in heterogeneous patient populations. Using the formulae, values are calculated for deltaD50(10)-the increase in dose leading to a 50% series-type complication rate (D50) when irradiated organ volume is reduced tenfold. From the structure of the ntcp formulae derived, it follows that dose-levels leading to clinically relevant serious complication rates (less than 5%) will change less with irradiated volume than will D50. Calculated values of deltaD50(10) for the heterogeneous series model are low-generally less than 6 Gy; such values are much lower than those calculated for the non-heterogeneous series model (27-37 Gy). These results suggest that if the dose-limiting toxicity of a radiotherapy treatment is a series-type complication with a local damage mechanism similar to any of those studied in this work, then even very substantial improvements in technique-leading to large reductions in highly dosed normal tissue volumes-would be unlikely to allow a useful degree of escalation of the dose delivered to the tumour, unless highly dosed normal tissue volumes can be reduced below the length-scale of a functional subunit.