Evaluation of dosimetric margins in prostate IMRT treatment plans

Target Volume Optimization for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive review of the means by which to optimize target volume definition for the purposes of treatment planning for patients with intact prostate cancer with a specific emphasis on focal boost volume definition.

METHODS

Here we conduct a narrative review of the available literature summarizing the current state of knowledge on optimizing target volume definition for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Historically, the treatment of prostate cancer included a uniform prescription dose administered to the entire prostate with or without coverage of all or part of the seminal vesicles. The development of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) using prostate-specific radiotracers has ushered in an era in which radiation oncologists are able to localize and focally dose-escalate high-risk volumes in the prostate gland. Recent phase 3 data has demonstrated that incorporating focal dose escalation to high-risk subvolumes of the prostate improves biochemical control without significantly increasing toxicity. Still, several fundamental questions remain regarding the optimal target volume definition and prescription strategy to implement this technique. Given the remaining uncertainty, a knowledge of the pathological correlates of radiographic findings and the anatomic patterns of tumor spread may help inform clinical judgement for the definition of clinical target volumes.

CONCLUSION

Advanced imaging has the ability to improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer in multiple ways, including by enabling focal dose escalation to high-risk subvolumes. However, many questions remain regarding the optimal target volume definition and prescription strategy to implement this practice, and key knowledge gaps remain. A detailed understanding of the pathological correlates of radiographic findings and the patterns of local tumor spread may help inform clinical judgement for target volume definition given the current state of uncertainty.

Biologically Targeted Radiation Therapy: Incorporating Patient-Specific Hypoxia Data Derived from Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PURPOSE

Hypoxia has been linked to radioresistance. Strategies to safely dose escalate dominant intraprostatic lesions have shown promising results, but further dose escalation to overcome the effects of hypoxia require a novel approach to constrain the dose in normal tissue.to safe levels. In this study, we demonstrate a biologically targeted radiotherapy (BiRT) approach that can utilise multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to target hypoxia for favourable treatment outcomes.

METHODS

mpMRI-derived tumour biology maps, developed via a radiogenomics study, were used to generate individualised, hypoxia-targeting prostate IMRT plans using an ultra- hypofractionation schedule. The spatial distribution of mpMRI textural features associated with hypoxia-related genetic profiles was used as a surrogate of tumour hypoxia. The effectiveness of the proposed approach was assessed by quantifying the potential benefit of a general focal boost approach on tumour control probability, and also by comparing the dose to organs at risk (OARs) with hypoxia-guided focal dose escalation (DE) plans generated for five patients.

RESULTS

Applying an appropriately guided focal boost can greatly mitigate the impact of hypoxia. Statistically significant reductions in rectal and bladder dose were observed for hypoxia-targeting, biologically optimised plans compared to isoeffective focal DE plans.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study suggest the use of mpMRI for voxel-level targeting of hypoxia, along with biological optimisation, can provide a mechanism for guiding focal DE that is considerably more efficient than application of a general, dose-based optimisation, focal boost.

Prostate or bone? Comparing the efficacy of image guidance surrogates for pelvis and prostate radiotherapy using accumulated delivered dose

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the impact of dosimetry to both the target and normal tissue when either bony anatomy (BA) or prostate (PRO) was used as surrogates for image guidance for pelvis and prostate radiotherapy using a dose accumulation process.

METHODS

Thirty patients who were prescribed 50-54Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (PLN) and 78Gy to the prostate/seminal vesicles were included. Daily acquired CBCTs were rigidly registered to the CT using BA and PRO to simulate two different treatment positions. The accumulated delivered dose (D_Acc) of PLN, prostate, bladder and rectum for each surrogate were compared with the planned dose. Deviation from the planned dose (ΔD_Acc-Plan) of >5% was considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Prostate was displaced from bony anatomy by > 5 mm in 96/755 fractions (12.7%). Deviation between the mean D_Acc and the planned dose for PLN and prostate was <2% when either BA or PRO was used. No significant deviation from planned dose was observed for bladder (p > 0.2). In contrary, D_Acc for rectum D₅₀ was significantly greater than the planned dose when BA was used (Mean ΔD_Acc-Plan = 6%). When examining individual patient, deviation from the planned dose for rectum D₅₀ was clinically significant for 18 patients for BA (Range: 5-21%) and only 8 patients for PRO (Range: 5-8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of either BA or PRO for image guidance could deliver dose to PLN and prostate with minimal deviation from the plan using existing PTV margins. However, deviation for rectum was greater when BA was used.

What is plan quality in radiotherapy? The importance of evaluating dose metrics, complexity, and robustness of treatment plans

Plan evaluation is a key step in the radiotherapy treatment workflow. Central to this step is the assessment of treatment plan quality. Hence, it is important to agree on what we mean by plan quality and to be fully aware of which parameters it depends on. We understand plan quality in radiotherapy as the clinical suitability of the delivered dose distribution that can be realistically expected from a treatment plan. Plan quality is commonly assessed by evaluating the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). Evaluating the 3D dose distribution is not easy, however; it is hard to fully evaluate its spatial characteristics and we still lack the knowledge for personalising the prediction of the clinical outcome based on individual patient characteristics. This advocates for standardisation and systematic collection of clinical data and outcomes after radiotherapy. Additionally, the calculated dose distribution is not exactly the dose delivered to the patient due to uncertainties in the dose calculation and the treatment delivery, including variations in the patient set-up and anatomy. Consequently, plan quality also depends on the robustness and complexity of the treatment plan. We believe that future work and consensus on the best metrics for quality indices are required. Better tools are needed in TPSs for the evaluation of dose distributions, for the robust evaluation and optimisation of treatment plans, and for controlling and reporting plan complexity. Implementation of such tools and a better understanding of these concepts will facilitate the handling of these characteristics in clinical practice and be helpful to increase the overall quality of treatment plans in radiotherapy.

Assessment of biological dosimetric margin for stereotactic body radiation therapy

Purpose

To develop a novel biological dosimetric margin (BDM) and to create a biological conversion factor (BCF) that compensates for the difference between physical dosimetric margin (PDM) and BDM, which provides a novel scheme of a direct estimation of the BDM from the physical dose (PD) distribution.

Methods

The offset to isocenter was applied in 1‐mm steps along left‐right (LR), anterior‐posterior (AP), and cranio‐caudal (CC) directions for 10 treatment plans of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with a prescribed dose of 48 Gy. These plans were recalculated to biological equivalent dose (BED) by the linear‐quadratic model for the dose per fraction (DPF) of d = 3–20 Gy/fr and α/β=3-10. BDM and PDM were defined so that the region that satisfied that the dose covering 95% (or 98%) of the clinical target volume was greater than or equal to the 90% of the prescribed PD and BED, respectively. An empirical formula of the BCF was created as a function of the DPF.

Results

There was no significant difference between LR and AP directions for neither the PDM nor BDM. On the other hand, BDM and PDM in the CC direction were significantly larger than in the other directions. BCFs of D_95% and D_98% were derived for the transverse (LR and AP) and longitudinal (CC) directions.

Conclusions

A novel scheme to directly estimate the BDM using the BCF was developed. This technique is expected to enable the BED‐based SBRT treatment planning using PD‐based treatment planning systems.

Estimating PTV Margins in Head and Neck Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) Through Target Site Analysis of Positioning and Intrafractional Accuracy

PURPOSE

Recurrent or previously irradiated head and neck cancers (HNC) are therapeutically challenging and may benefit from high-dose, highly accurate radiation techniques, such as stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR). Here, we compare set-up and positioning accuracy across HNC subsites to further optimize the treatment process and planning target volume (PTV) margin recommendations for head and neck SABR.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We prospectively collected data on 405 treatment fractions across 79 patients treated with SABR for recurrent/previously irradiated HNC. First, interfractional error was determined by comparing ExacTrac x-ray to the treatment plan. Patients were then shifted and residual error was measured with repeat x-ray. Next, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was compared with ExacTrac for positioning agreement, and final shifts were applied. Lastly, intrafractional error was measured with x-ray before each arc. Results were stratified by treatment site into skull base, neck/parotid, and mucosal.

RESULTS

Most patients (66.7%) were treated to 45 Gy in 5 fractions (range, 21-47.5 Gy in 3-5 fractions). The initial mean ± standard deviation interfractional errors were -0.2 ± 1.4 mm (anteroposterior), 0.2 ± 1.8 mm (craniocaudal), and -0.1 ± 1.7 mm (left-right). Interfractional 3-dimensional vector error was 2.48 ± 1.44, with skull base significantly lower than other sites (2.22 vs 2.77; P = .0016). All interfractional errors were corrected to within 1.3 mm and 1.8°. CBCT agreed with ExacTrac to within 3.6 mm and 3.4°. CBCT disagreements and intrafractional errors of >1 mm or >1° occurred at significantly lower rates in skull base sites (CBCT: 16.4% vs 50.0% neck, 52.0% mucosal, P < .0001; intrafractional: 22.0% vs 48.7% all others, P < .0001). Final PTVs were 1.5 mm (skull base), 2.0 mm (neck/parotid), and 1.8 mm (mucosal).

CONCLUSIONS

Head and neck SABR PTV margins should be optimized by target site. PTV margins of 1.5 to 2 mm may be sufficient in the skull base, whereas 2 to 2.5 mm may be necessary for neck and mucosal targets. When using ExacTrac, skull base sites show significantly fewer uncertainties throughout the treatment process, but neck/mucosal targets may require the addition of CBCT to account for positioning errors and internal organ motion.

Calculation of delivered composite dose from Calypso tracking data for prostate cancer: And subsequent evaluation of reasonable treatment interruption tolerance limits

PURPOSE

In this study we calculate composite dose delivered to the prostate by using the Calypso tracking -data- stream acquired during patient treatment in our clinic. We evaluate the composite distributions under multiple simulated Calypso tolerance level schemes and then recommend a tolerance level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven Calypso-localized prostate cancer patients treated in our clinic were selected for retrospective analysis. Two different IMRT treatment plans, with prostate PTV margins of 5 and 3 mm respectively, were computed for each patient. A delivered composite dose distribution was computed from Calypso tracking data for each plan. Additionally, we explored the dosimetric implications for "worst case" scenarios by assuming that the prostate position was located at one of the eight extreme corners of a 3 or 5 mm "box." To characterize plan quality under each of the studied scenarios, we recorded the maximum, mean, and minimum doses and volumetric coverage for prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Calculated composite dose distributions were very similar to the original plan for all patients. The difference in maximum, mean, and minimum doses as well as volumetric coverage for the prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum were all < 4.0% of prescription dose. Even for worst scenario cases, the results show acceptable isodose distribution, with the exception for the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin with a 5 mm position tolerance scheme.

CONCLUSIONS

Calculated composite dose distributions show that the vast majority of dosimetric metrics agreed well with the planned dose (within 2%). With significant/detrimental deviations from the planned dose only occurring with the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin and 5 mm position tolerance, the 3 mm position tolerance strategy appears reasonable, confirming that further reducing prostate PTV margins to 3 mm is possible when using Calypso with a position tolerance of 3 mm.

RETRACTED – Determination of geometrical margins in external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Introduction

The focus of this study is to find the optimal clinical tumour volume (CTV) to planning tumour volume (PTV) margins for precise radiotherapy treatment of prostate cancer. The geometrical shape of the target volume posses challenges in accurately identifying the CTV to PTV margins, especially when the organ affected by cancer demonstrates anatomical variations and the surrounding organs have high radio-sensitivity, in comparison to the organ of origin of the cancer.

Materials and methods

The geometrical margins of CTV to PTV are investigated using portal imaging, in three directions. This study is carried out on 20 patients treated by the external photon beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer using standard accelerator without stereotaxic and without prostate markers.

Results and discussion

Based on previous studies and the findings of our work, we propose CTV to PTV margin of 5·84 mm in the lateral direction, of 5·1 mm in the cranio-spinal direction and of 7·3 mm in the antero-posterior direction for external photon beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Conclusion

The proposed CTV to PTV margins ensure high radiotherapy treatment precision of prostate cancer.

Cone-beam CT-based inter-fraction localization errors for tumors in the pelvic region

PURPOSE

To evaluate inter-fraction tumor localization errors (TE) in the RapidArc® treatment of pelvic cancers based on CBCT. Appropriate CTV-to PTV margins in a non-IGRT scenario have been proposed.

METHODS

Data of 928 patients with prostate, gynecological, and rectum/anal canal cancers were retrospectively analyzed to determine systematic and random localization errors. Two protocols were used: daily online IGRT (d-IGRT) and weekly IGRT. The latter consisted in acquiring a CBCT for the first 3 fractions and subsequently once a week. TE for patients who underwent d-IGRT protocol were calculated using either all CBCTs or the first 3.

RESULTS

The systematic (and random) TE in the AP, LL, and SI direction were: for prostate bed 2.7(3.2), 2.3(2.8) and 1.9(2.2) mm; for prostate 4.2(3.1), 2.9(2.8) and 2.3(2.2) mm; for gynecological 3.0(3.6), 2.4(2.7) and 2.3(2.5) mm; for rectum 2.8(2.8), 2.4(2.8) and 2.3(2.5) mm; for anal canal 3.1(3.3), 2.1(2.5) and 2.2(2.7) mm. CTV-to-PTV margins determined from all CBCTs were 14 mm in the AP, 10 mm in the LL and 9-9.5 mm in the SI directions for the prostate and the gynecological groups and 9.5-10.5 mm in AP, 9 mm in LL and 8-10 mm in the SI direction for the prostate bed and the rectum/anal canal groups. If assessed on the basis of the first 3 CBCTs, the calculated CTV-to-PTV margins were slightly larger.

CONCLUSIONS

without IGRT, large CTV-to-PTV margins up to 15 mm are required to account for inter-fraction tumor localization errors. Daily IGRT should be used for all hypo-fractionated treatments to reduce margins and avoid increased toxicity to critical organs.

Positional uncertainty of vaginal cuff and feasibility of implementing portable bladder scanner in postoperative cervical cancer patients

PURPOSE

To propose a geometrical margin for definition of the vaginal cuff PTV using only CT images of the full bladder (CT_full) in postoperative cervical cancer patients.

METHODS

Twenty-nine operated cervical cancer patients underwent volumetric arc therapy with a bladder filling protocol. This study assessed bladder filling using a portable bladder scanner and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during the entire treatment period. The measured bladder volumes with a BladderScan® were compared with the delineated volume on CBCT. Titanium clips in the vaginal cuff were analysed to assess geometrical uncertainty and the influence of rectal and bladder volume changes.

RESULTS

BladderScan® showed good agreement with the delineated volume (R = 0.80). The volume changes in the bladder have a greater influence on the clip displacements than in the rectum. The 95th percentile of uncertainty of the clips in reference to CT_full in the right-left (RL), the superoinferior (SI), and the anteroposterior (AP) was 0.32, 0.65, and 1.15 cm, respectively. From this result and intra-fractional movements of the vaginal cuff reported by Haripotepornkul, a new geometrical margin was proposed for definition of the vaginal cuff planning target volume (PTV): 0.5, 0.9, and 1.4 cm in the RL, SI, and AP directions, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A new geometrical margin was proposed for definition of the vaginal cuff PTV based on CT_full, which will be needless of empty bladder at the planning CT scan. This method allows patients to reduce the burden and efficient routine CT scans can be improved.

Treatment plan comparison between Tri-Co-60 magnetic-resonance image-guided radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

To investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with magnetic-resonance image-guided radiation therapy compared with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer. Twenty patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, who received radical VMAT were selected. Additional tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were generated for each patient. Both primary and boost plans were generated with tri-Co-60 IMRT and VMAT techniques. The prescription doses of the primary and boost plans were 50.4 Gy and 30.6 Gy, respectively. The primary and boost planning target volumes (PTVs) of the tri-Co-60 IMRT were generated with 3 mm margins from the primary clinical target volume (CTV, prostate + seminal vesicle) and a boost CTV (prostate), respectively. VMAT had a primary planning target volume (primary CTV + 1 cm or 2 cm margins) and a boost PTV (boost CTV + 0.7 cm margins), respectively. For both tri-Co-60 IMRT and VMAT, all the primary and boost plans were generated that 95% of the target volumes would be covered by the 100% of the prescription doses. Sum plans were generated by summation of primary and boost plans. In sum plans, the average values of V70 Gy of the bladder of tri-Co-60 IMRT vs. VMAT were 4.0% ± 3.1% vs. 10.9% ± 6.7%, (p < 0.001). Average values of V70 Gy of the rectum of tri-Co-60 IMRT vs. VMAT were 5.2% ± 1.8% vs. 19.1% ± 4.0% (p < 0.001). The doses of tri-Co-60 IMRT delivered to the bladder and rectum were smaller than those of VMAT while maintaining identical target coverage in both plans.

Clinical adequacy assessment of autocontours for prostate IMRT with meaningful endpoints

PURPOSE

To determine if radiation treatment plans created based on autosegmented (AS) regions-of-interest (ROI)s are clinically equivalent to plans created based on manually segmented ROIs, where equivalence is evaluated using probabilistic dosimetric metrics and probabilistic biological endpoints for prostate IMRT.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Manually drawn contours and autosegmented ROIs were created for 167 CT image sets acquired from 19 prostate patients. Autosegmentation was performed utilizing Pinnacle's Smart Probabilistic Image Contouring Engine. For each CT set, 78 Gy/39 fraction 7-beam IMRT treatment plans with 1 cm CTV-to-PTV margins were created for each of the three contour scenarios; PMD using manually delineated (MD) ROIs, PAS using autosegmented ROIs, and PAM using autosegmented organ-at-risks (OAR)s and the manually drawn target. For each plan, 1000 virtual treatment simulations with different systematic errors for each simulation and a different random error for each fraction were performed. The statistical probability of achieving dose-volume metrics (coverage probability (CP)), expectation values for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and tumor control probability (TCP) metrics for all possible cross-evaluation pairs of ROI types and planning scenarios were reported. In evaluation scenarios, the root mean square loss (RMSL) and maximum absolute loss (MAL) of coverage probability of dose-volume objectives, E[TCP], and E[NTCP] were compared with respect to the base plan created and evaluated with manually drawn contours.

RESULTS

Femoral head dose objectives were satisfied in all situations, as well as the maximum dose objectives for all ROIs. Bladder metrics were within the clinical coverage tolerances except D35Gy for the autosegmented plan evaluated with the manual contours. Dosimetric indices for CTV and rectum could be highly compromised when the definition of the ROIs switched from manually delineated to autosegmented. Seventy-two percent of CT image sets satisfied the worst-case CP thresholds for all dosimetric objectives in all scenarios, the percentage dropped to 50% if biological indices were taken into account. Among evaluation scenarios, (MD,PAM ) bore the highest resemblance to (MD,PMD ) where 99% and 88% of cases met all CP thresholds for bladder and rectum, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When including daily setup variations in prostate IMRT, the dose-volume metric CP, and biological indices of ROIs were approximately equivalent for the plans created based on manually drawn targets and autosegmented OARs in 88% of cases. The accuracy of autosegmented prostates and rectums are impediment to attain statistically equivalent plans created based on manually drawn ROIs.

[Establishing margins from CTV to PTV in breast cancer treatment]

The benefit of postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer both in terms of local control and overall survival is widely acknowledged. Today, technological advances in simulation imaging and positioning control enable the definition of new margins from CTV to PTV. Improvements in mathematical modeling of random and systematic errors impact the treatment plans. However, there is no universal absolute value to consistently determine the margins from CTV to PTV. It is down to each centre to assess and correct as much as possible uncertainties due to positioning and internal movements depending on techniques and methods used for the implementation of treatment and monitoring. IMRT and respiratory gating techniques for breast radiotherapy will be considered more systematically in the years to come.

Coverage-based treatment planning to accommodate delineation uncertainties in prostate cancer treatment

PURPOSE

To compare two coverage-based planning (CP) techniques with fixed margin-based (FM) planning for high-risk prostate cancer treatments, with the exclusive consideration of the dosimetric impact of delineation uncertainties of target structures and normal tissues.

METHODS

In this work, 19-patient data sets were involved. To estimate structure dose for each delineated contour under the influence of interobserver contour variability and CT image quality limitations, 1000 alternative structures were simulated by an average-surface-of-standard-deviation model, which utilized the patient-specific information of delineated structure and CT image contrast. An IMRT plan with zero planning-target-volume (PTV) margin on the delineated prostate and seminal vesicles [clinical-target-volume (CTV prostate) and CTVSV] was created and dose degradation due to contour variability was quantified by the dosimetric consequences of 1000 alternative structures. When D98 failed to achieve a 95% coverage probability objective D98,95 ≥ 78 Gy (CTV prostate) or D98,95 ≥ 66 Gy (CTVSV), replanning was performed using three planning techniques: (1) FM (PTV prostate margin = 4,5,6 mm and PTVSV margin = 4,5,7 mm for RL, PA, and SI directions, respectively), (2) CPOM which optimized uniform PTV margins for CTV prostate and CTVSV to meet the D98,95 objectives, and (3) CPCOP which directly optimized coverage-based objectives for all the structures. These plans were intercompared by computing percentile dose-volume histograms and tumor-control probability/normal tissue complication probability (TCP/NTCP) distributions.

RESULTS

Inherent contour variability resulted in unacceptable CTV coverage for the zero-PTV-margin plans for all patients. For plans designed to accommodate contour variability, 18/19 CP plans were most favored by achieving desirable D98,95 and TCP/NTCP values. The average improvement of probability of complication free control was 9.3% for CPCOP plans and 3.4% for CPOM plans.

CONCLUSIONS

When the delineation uncertainties need to be considered for prostate patients, CP techniques can produce more desirable plans than FM plans for most patients. The relative advantages between CPCOP and CPOM techniques are patient specific.

Deformable image registration and interobserver variation in contour propagation for radiation therapy planning

Deformable image registration (DIR) and interobserver variation inevitably introduce uncertainty into the treatment planning process. The purpose of the current work was to measure deformable image registration (DIR) errors and interobserver variability for regions of interest (ROIs) in the head and neck and pelvic regions. Measured uncertainties were combined to examine planning margin adequacy for contours propagated for adaptive therapy and to assess the trade‐off of DIR and interobserver uncertainty in atlas‐based automatic segmentation. Two experienced dosimetrists retrospectively contoured brainstem, spinal cord, anterior oral cavity, larynx, right and left parotids, optic nerves, and eyes on the planning CT (CT1) and attenuation‐correction CT of diagnostic PET/CT (CT2) for 30 patients who received radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Two senior radiation oncology residents retrospectively contoured prostate, bladder, and rectum on the postseed‐implant CT (CT1) and planning CT (CT2) for 20 patients who received radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Interobserver variation was measured by calculating mean Hausdorff distances between the two observers' contours. CT2 was deformably registered to CT1 via commercially available multipass B‐spline DIR. CT2 contours were propagated and compared with CT1 contours via mean Hausdorff distances. These values were summed in quadrature with interobserver variation for margin analysis and compared with interobserver variation for statistical significance using two‐tailed t‐tests for independent samples (α=0.05). Combined uncertainty ranged from 1.5‐5.8 mm for head and neck structures and 3.1‐3.7 mm for pelvic structures. Conventional 5 mm margins may not be adequate to cover this additional uncertainty. DIR uncertainty was significantly less than interobserver variation for four head and neck and one pelvic ROI. DIR uncertainty was not significantly different than interobserver variation for four head and neck and one pelvic ROI. DIR uncertainty was significantly greater than interobserver variation for two head and neck and one pelvic ROI. The introduction of DIR errors may offset any reduction in interobserver variation by using atlas‐based automatic segmentation.

PACS number(s): 87.57.nj, 87.55.D‐

Determination of optimal PTV margin for patients receiving CBCT-guided prostate IMRT: comparative analysis based on CBCT dose calculation with four different margins

Variations in daily setup and rectum/bladder filling lead to uncertainties in the delivery of prostate IMRT. The purpose of this study is to determine the optimal PTV margin for CBCT‐guided prostate IMRT based on daily CBCT dose calculations using four different margins. Five patients diagnosed with low‐risk prostate cancer were treated with prostate IMRT to 70 Gy in 28 fractions using daily CBCT for image guidance. The prostate CTV and OARs were contoured on all CBCTs. IMRT plans were created using 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm CTV to PTV expansions. For each delivered fraction, dose calculations were generated utilizing the pretreatment CBCT translational shifts performed and dosimetric analysis was performed. One hundred and forty total treatment fractions (CBCT sessions) were evaluated. The planned prostate CTV V100% was 100% for all PTV margins. Based on CBCT analysis, the actual cumulative CTVs V100% were 96.55%±2.94%,99.49%±1.36%,99.98%±0.26%, and 99.99%±0.05% for 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm uniform PTV margins, respectively. Delivered rectum and bladder doses were different as compared to expected planned doses, with the magnitude of differences increasing with PTV margin. Daily setup variation during prostate IMRT yields differences in the actual vs. expected doses received by the prostate CTV, rectum, and bladder. The magnitude of these differences is significantly affected by the PTV margin utilized. It was found that when daily CBCT was used for soft‐tissue alignment of the prostate, a 3 mm PTV margin allowed for CTV to be covered for 99% of cases.

PACS numbers: 87.55.dk‐, 87.57.Q‐

Coverage-based treatment planning to accommodate deformable organ variations in prostate cancer treatment

PURPOSE

To compare two coverage-based planning (CP) techniques with standard fixed margin-based planning (FM), considering the dosimetric impact of interfraction deformable organ motion exclusively for high-risk prostate treatments.

METHODS

Nineteen prostate cancer patients with 8-13 prostate CT images of each patient were used to model patient-specific interfraction deformable organ changes. The model was based on the principal component analysis (PCA) method and was used to predict the patient geometries for virtual treatment course simulation. For each patient, an IMRT plan using zero margin on target structures, prostate (CTVprostate) and seminal vesicles (CTVSV), were created, then evaluated by simulating 1000 30-fraction virtual treatment courses. Each fraction was prostate centroid aligned. Patients whose D98 failed to achieve 95% coverage probability objective D98,95 ≥ 78 Gy (CTVprostate) or D98,95 ≥ 66 Gy (CTVSV) were replanned using planning techniques: (1) FM (PTVprostate = CTVprostate + 5 mm, PTVSV = CTVSV + 8 mm), (2) CPOM which optimized uniform PTV margins for CTVprostate and CTVSV to meet the coverage probability objective, and (3) CPCOP which directly optimized coverage probability objectives for all structures of interest. These plans were intercompared by computing probabilistic metrics, including 5% and 95% percentile DVHs (pDVH) and TCP/NTCP distributions.

RESULTS

All patients were replanned using FM and two CP techniques. The selected margins used in FM failed to ensure target coverage for 8/19 patients. Twelve CPOM plans and seven CPCOP plans were favored over the other plans by achieving desirable D98,95 while sparing more normal tissues.

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage-based treatment planning techniques can produce better plans than FM, while relative advantages of CPOM and CPCOP are patient-specific.

Combined recipe for clinical target volume and planning target volume margins

PURPOSE

To develop a combined recipe for clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) margins.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A widely accepted PTV margin recipe is M(geo) = aΣ(geo) + bσ(geo), with Σ(geo) and σ(geo) standard deviations (SDs) representing systematic and random geometric uncertainties, respectively. On the basis of histopathology data of breast and lung tumors, we suggest describing the distribution of microscopic islets around the gross tumor volume (GTV) by a half-Gaussian with SD Σ(micro), yielding as possible CTV margin recipe: M(micro) = ƒ(N(i)) × Σ(micro), with N(i) the average number of microscopic islets per patient. To determine ƒ(N(i)), a computer model was developed that simulated radiation therapy of a spherical GTV with isotropic distribution of microscopic disease in a large group of virtual patients. The minimal margin that yielded D(min) <95% in maximally 10% of patients was calculated for various Σ(micro) and N(i). Because Σ(micro) is independent of Σ(geo), we propose they should be added quadratically, yielding for a combined GTV-to-PTV margin recipe: M(GTV-PTV) = √{[aΣ(geo)](2) + [ƒ(N(i))Σ(micro)](2)} + bσ(geo). This was validated by the computer model through numerous simultaneous simulations of microscopic and geometric uncertainties.

RESULTS

The margin factor ƒ(N(i)) in a relevant range of Σ(micro) and N(i) can be given by: ƒ(N(i)) = 1.4 + 0.8log(N(i)). Filling in the other factors found in our simulations (a = 2.1 and b = 0.8) yields for the combined recipe: M(GTV-PTV) = √({2.1Σ(geo)}(2) + {[1.4 + 0.8log(N(i))] × Σ(micro)}(2)) + 0.8σ(geo). The average margin difference between the simultaneous simulations and the above recipe was 0.2 ± 0.8 mm (1 SD). Calculating M(geo) and M(micro) separately and adding them linearly overestimated PTVs by on average 5 mm. Margin recipes based on tumor control probability (TCP) instead of D(min) criteria yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

A general recipe for GTV-to-PTV margins is proposed, which shows that CTV and PTV margins should be added in quadrature instead of linearly.

A new deconvolution approach to robust fluence for intensity modulation under geometrical uncertainty

This work addresses random geometrical uncertainties that are intrinsically observed in radiation therapy by means of a new deconvolution method combining a series expansion and a Butterworth filter. The method efficiently suppresses high-frequency components by discarding the higher order terms of the series expansion and then filtering out deviations on the field edges. An additional approximation is made in order to set the fluence values outside the field to zero in the robust profiles. This method is compared to the deconvolution kernel method for a regular 2D fluence map, a real intensity-modulated radiation therapy field, and a prostate case. The results show that accuracy is improved while fulfilling clinical planning requirements.

Comparisons of treatment optimization directly incorporating systematic patient setup uncertainty with a margin-based approach

PURPOSE

To develop a probabilistic treatment planning (PTP) method which is robust to systematic patient setup errors and to compare PTP plans with plans generated using a planning target volume (PTV) margin optimized to give the same target coverage probability as the PTP plan.

METHODS

Plans adhering to the RTOG-0126 protocol are developed for 28 prostate patients using PTP and margin-based planning. For PTP, an objective function that simultaneously considers multiple possible patient positions is developed. PTP plans are optimized using clinical target volume (CTV) structures and organ at risk (OAR) structures. The desired CTV coverage probability is 95%. Plans that cannot achieve a 95% CTV coverage probability are re-optimized with a desired CTV coverage probability reduced by 5% until the desired CTV coverage probability is achieved. Margin-based plans are created which achieve the same CTV coverage probability as the PTP plans by iterative adjustment of the CTV-to-PTV margin. Postoptimization, probabilistic dose-volume coverage metrics are used to compare the plans.

RESULTS

For equivalent target coverage probability, PTP plans significantly reduce coverage probability for rectum objectives (-17% for D(35) < 65 Gy, p = 0.0010; -23% for D(25) < 70 Gy, p < 0.0001; and -27% for D(15) < 75 Gy, p < 0.0001). Physician assessment indicates PTP plans are entirely preferred 71% of the time while margin-based plans are entirely preferred 7% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

For plans having the same target coverage probability, PTP has potential to reduce rectal doses while maintaining CTV coverage probability. In blind comparisons, physicians prefer PTP plans over optimized margin plans.

Prostate intrafraction translation margins for real-time monitoring and correction strategies

The purpose of this work is to determine appropriate radiation therapy beam margins to account for intrafraction prostate translations for use with real-time electromagnetic position monitoring and correction strategies. Motion was measured continuously in 35 patients over 1157 fractions at 5 institutions. This data was studied using van Herk's formula of (αΣ + γσ') for situations ranging from no electromagnetic guidance to automated real-time corrections. Without electromagnetic guidance, margins of over 10 mm are necessary to ensure 95% dosimetric coverage while automated electromagnetic guidance allows the margins necessary for intrafraction translations to be reduced to submillimeter levels. Factors such as prostate deformation and rotation, which are not included in this analysis, will become the dominant concerns as margins are reduced. Continuous electromagnetic monitoring and automated correction have the potential to reduce prostate margins to 2-3 mm, while ensuring that a higher percentage of patients (99% versus 90%) receive a greater percentage (99% versus 95%) of the prescription dose.

Individualized margins for prostate patients using a wireless localization and tracking system

This study investigates the dosimetric benefits of designing patient-specific margins for prostate cancer patients based on 4D localization and tracking. Ten prostate patients, each implanted with three radiofrequency transponders, were localized and tracked for 40 fractions. "Conventional margin" (CM) planning target volumes (PTV) and PTVs resulting from uniform margins of 5 mm (5M) and 7 mm (7M) were explored. Through retrospective review of each patient's tracking data, an individualized margin (IM) design for each patient was determined. IMRT treatment plans with identical constraints were generated for all four margin strategies and compared. The IM plans generally created the smallest PTV volumes. For similar PTV coverage, the IM plans had a lower mean bladder (rectal) dose by an average of 3.9% (2.5%), 8.5% (5.7%) and 16.2 % (9.8%) compared to 5M, 7M and CM plans, respectively. The IM plan had the lowest gEUD value of 23.8 Gy for bladder, compared to 35.1, 28.4 and 25.7, for CM, 7M and 5M, respectively. Likewise, the IM plan had the lowest NTCP value for rectum of 0.04, compared to 0.07, 0.06 and 0.05 for CM, 7M and 5M, respectively. Individualized margins can lead to significantly reduced PTV volumes and critical structure doses, while still ensuring a minimum delivered CTV dose equal to 95% of the prescribed dose.

Sensitivity of postplanning target and OAR coverage estimates to dosimetric margin distribution sampling parameters

PURPOSE

A dosimetric margin (DM) is the margin in a specified direction between a structure and a specified isodose surface, corresponding to a prescription or tolerance dose. The dosimetric margin distribution (DMD) is the distribution of DMs over all directions. Given a geometric uncertainty model, representing inter- or intrafraction setup uncertainties or internal organ motion, the DMD can be used to calculate coverage Q, which is the probability that a realized target or organ-at-risk (OAR) dose metric D, exceeds the corresponding prescription or tolerance dose. Postplanning coverage evaluation quantifies the percentage of uncertainties for which target and OAR structures meet their intended dose constraints. The goal of the present work is to evaluate coverage probabilities for 28 prostate treatment plans to determine DMD sampling parameters that ensure adequate accuracy for postplanning coverage estimates.

METHODS

Normally distributed interfraction setup uncertainties were applied to 28 plans for localized prostate cancer, with prescribed dose of 79.2 Gy and 10 mm clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-to-PTV) margins. Using angular or isotropic sampling techniques, dosimetric margins were determined for the CTV, bladder and rectum, assuming shift invariance of the dose distribution. For angular sampling, DMDs were sampled at fixed angular intervals w (e.g., w = 1 degree, 2 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, 20 degrees). Isotropic samples were uniformly distributed on the unit sphere resulting in variable angular increments, but were calculated for the same number of sampling directions as angular DMDs, and accordingly characterized by the effective angular increment omega eff. In each direction, the DM was calculated by moving the structure in radial steps of size delta (=0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1 mm) until the specified isodose was crossed. Coverage estimation accuracy deltaQ was quantified as a function of the sampling parameters omega or omega eff and delta.

RESULTS

The accuracy of coverage estimates depends on angular and radial DMD sampling parameters omega or omega eff and delta, as well as the employed sampling technique. Target deltaQ/ < l% and OAR /deltaQ/ < 3% can be achieved with sampling parameters omega or omega eef = 20 degrees, delta =1 mm. Better accuracy (target /deltaQ < 0.5% and OAR /deltaQ < approximately 1%) can be achieved with omega or omega eff = 10 degrees, delta = 0.5 mm. As the number of sampling points decreases, the isotropic sampling method maintains better accuracy than fixed angular sampling.

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage estimates for post-planning evaluation are essential since coverage values of targets and OARs often differ from the values implied by the static margin-based plans. Finer sampling of the DMD enables more accurate assessment of the effect of geometric uncertainties on coverage estimates prior to treatment. DMD sampling with omega or omega eff = 10 degrees and delta = 0.5 mm should be adequate for planning purposes.

Accuracy of relocation, evaluation of geometric uncertainties and clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin in fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for intracranial tumors using relocatable Gill-Thomas-Cosman (GTC) frame

The present study is aimed at determination of accuracy of relocation of Gill-Thomas-Cosman frame during fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. The study aims to quantitatively determine the magnitudes of error in anteroposterior, mediolateral and craniocaudal directions, and determine the margin between clinical target volume to planning target volume based on systematic and random errors. Daily relocation error was measured using depth helmet and measuring probe. Based on the measurements, translational displacements in anteroposterior (z), mediolateral (x), and craniocaudal (y) directions were calculated. Based on the displacements in x, y and z directions, systematic and random error were calculated and three-dimensional radial displacement vector was determined. Systematic and random errors were used to derive CTV to PTV margin. The errors were within ± 2 mm in 99.2% cases in anteroposterior direction (AP), in 99.6% cases in mediolateral direction (ML), and in 97.6% cases in craniocaudal direction (CC). In AP, ML and CC directions, systematic errors were 0.56, 0.38, 0.42 mm and random errors were 1.86, 1.36 and 0.73 mm, respectively. Mean radial displacement was 1.03 mm ± 0.34. CTV to PTV margins calculated by ICRU formula were 1.86, 1.45 and 0.93 mm; by Stroom's formula they were 2.42, 1.74 and 1.35 mm; by van Herk's formula they were 2.7, 1.93 and 1.56 mm (AP, ML and CC directions). Depth helmet with measuring probe provides a clinically viable way for assessing the relocation accuracy of GTC frame. The errors were within ± 2 mm in all directions. Systematic and random errors were more along the anteroposterior axes. According to the ICRU formula, a margin of 2 mm around the tumor seems to be adequate.

Intensity modulation under geometrical uncertainty: a deconvolution approach to robust fluence

A deconvolution algorithm has been developed to obtain robust fluence for external beam radiation treatment under geometrical uncertainties. Usually, the geometrical uncertainty is incorporated in the dose optimization process for inverse treatment planning to determine the additional intensity modulation of the beam to counter the geometrical uncertainty. Most of these approaches rely on dose convolution which is subject to the error caused by patient surface curvature and internal inhomogeneity. In this work, based on an 1D deconvolution algorithm developed by Ulmer and Kaissl, a fluence-deconvolution approach was developed to obtain robust fluence through the deconvolution of the nominal static one given by any treatment planning system. It incorporates the geometrical uncertainty outside the dose optimization procedure and therefore avoids the error of dose convolution. Robust fluences were calculated for a 4 x 4 cm flat field, a prostate IMRT and a head and neck IMRT plan in a commercial treatment planning system. The corresponding doses were simulated for 30 fractions with the random Gaussian distribution of the iso-centers showing good agreement with the nominal static doses. The feasibility of this deconvolution approach for clinical IMRT planning has been demonstrated. Because it is separated from the optimization procedure, this method is more flexible and easier to integrate into different existing treatment planning systems to obtain robust fluence.

Dosimetric impact of daily setup variations during treatment of canine nasal tumors using intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can be employed to yield precise dose distributions that tightly conform to targets and reduce high doses to normal structures by generating steep dose gradients. Because of these sharp gradients, daily setup variations may have an adverse effect on clinical outcome such that an adjacent normal structure may be overdosed and/or the target may be underdosed. This study provides a detailed analysis of the impact of daily setup variations on optimized IMRT canine nasal tumor treatment plans when variations are not accounted for due to the lack of image guidance. Setup histories of ten patients with nasal tumors previously treated using helical tomotherapy were replanned retrospectively to study the impact of daily setup variations on IMRT dose distributions. Daily setup shifts were applied to IMRT plans on a fraction-by-fraction basis. Using mattress immobilization and laser alignment, mean setup error magnitude in any single dimension was at least 2.5 mm (0-10.0 mm). With inclusions of all three translational coordinates, mean composite offset vector was 5.9 +/- 3.3 mm. Due to variations, a loss of equivalent uniform dose for target volumes of up to 5.6% was noted which corresponded to a potential loss in tumor control probability of 39.5%. Overdosing of eyes and brain was noted by increases in mean normalized total dose and highest normalized dose given to 2% of the volume. Findings suggest that successful implementation of canine nasal IMRT requires daily image guidance to ensure accurate delivery of precise IMRT distributions when non-rigid immobilization techniques are utilized. Unrecognized geographical misses may result in tumor recurrence and/or radiation toxicities to the eyes and brain.

Inter- and intrafractional positional uncertainties in pediatric radiotherapy patients with brain and head and neck tumors

PURPOSE

To estimate radiation therapy planning margins based on inter- and intrafractional uncertainty for pediatric brain and head and neck tumor patients at different imaging frequencies.

METHODS

Pediatric patients with brain (n = 83) and head and neck (n = 17) tumors (median age = 7.2 years) were enrolled on an internal review board-approved localization protocol and stratified according to treatment position and use of anesthesia. Megavoltage cone-beam CT (CBCT) was performed before each treatment and after every other treatment. The pretreatment offsets were used to calculate the interfractional setup uncertainty (SU), and posttreatment offsets were used to calculate the intrafractional residual uncertainty (RU). The SU and RU are the patient-related components of the setup margin (SM), which is part of the planning target volume (PTV). SU data was used to simulate four intervention strategies using different imaging frequencies and thresholds.

RESULTS

The SM based on all patients treated on this study was 2.1 mm (SU = 0.9 mm, RU = 1.9 mm) and varied according to treatment position (supine = 1.8 mm, prone = 2.6 mm) and use of anesthesia (with = 1.7 mm, without = 2.5 mm) because of differences in the RU. The average SU for a 2-mm threshold based on no imaging, once per week imaging, initial five images, and daily imaging was 3.6, 2.1, 2.2, and 0.9 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of this study, the SM component of the PTV may be reduced to 2 mm for daily CBCT compared with 3.5 mm for weekly CBCT. Considering patients who undergo daily pretreatment CBCT, the SM is larger for those treated in the prone position or smaller for those treated under anesthesia because of differences in the RU.

Dosimetric effect of setup motion and target volume margin reduction in pediatric ependymoma

PURPOSE

Quantify the dosimetric effect of inter- and intrafractional motion on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional (3D) planning via changes in the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD), predicted tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for pediatric ependymoma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty patients treated between 1998 and 2002 with a 3D plan (CTV = 1 cm, PTV = 5 mm) were selected. Two IMRT plans were created for the 1 cm CTV (PTV = 5 mm and PTV = 0 mm), and a third IMRT plan for a 5 mm CTV (PTV = 0 mm). Direct simulation with inter- and intrafractional motion was performed for 3D and IMRT plans based on daily pre and post-treatment cone beam CT information obtained from 20 well-matched patients (age, supine/prone, use of GA) on a localization protocol. Calculated TCP, NTCP, Conformity Index (CI), and predictive IQ were compared.

RESULTS

IMRT improved the calculated TCP by 2.8+/-2.8 vs. 3D (p<0.001). Inter- and intrafractional motion results in a TCP loss of 0.4+/-0.7 (p=0.02) and 0.0+/-0.1 (p=0.14) for the IMRT plan with PTV = 0 mm. Mean NTCP for 3D and IMRT with PTV = 5 mm, PTV = 0 mm, and CTV = 5 mm for the cochlea was: 66.6, 29.4, 8.7. Mean NTCP change due to motion was <5%. CI was 0.70+/-0.06 for IMRT and 0.5+/-0.10 for 3D. Predictive IQ was 10.0+/-10.3 points higher for IMRT vs. 3D.

CONCLUSIONS

IMRT improves calculated TCP vs. 3D. Daily localization can allow for a safe reduction in the PTV margin, while maintaining target coverage; reducing the CTV margin can further reduce NTCP and may reduce future side-effects.

Schedule for CT image guidance in treating prostate cancer with helical tomotherapy

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of reducing the number of image guidance sessions and patient-specific target margins on the dose distribution in the treatment of prostate cancer with helical tomotherapy. 20 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with helical tomotherapy using daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) imaging before treatment served as the study population. The average geometric shifts applied for set-up corrections, as a result of co-registration of MVCT and planning kilovoltage CT studies over an increasing number of image guidance sessions, were determined. Simulation of the consequences of various imaging scenarios on the dose distribution was performed for two patients with different patterns of interfraction changes in anatomy. Our analysis of the daily set-up correction shifts for 20 prostate cancer patients suggests that the use of four fractions would result in a population average shift that was within 1 mm of the average obtained from the data accumulated over all daily MVCT sessions. Simulation of a scenario in which imaging sessions are performed at a reduced frequency and the planning target volume margin is adapted provided significantly better sparing of organs at risk, with acceptable reproducibility of dose delivery to the clinical target volume. Our results indicate that four MVCT sessions on helical tomotherapy are sufficient to provide information for the creation of personalised target margins and the establishment of the new reference position that accounts for the systematic error. This simplified approach reduces overall treatment session time and decreases the imaging dose to the patient.

Comparisons of treatment optimization directly incorporating random patient setup uncertainty with a margin-based approach

The purpose of this study is to incorporate the dosimetric effect of random patient positioning uncertainties directly into a commercial treatment planning system's IMRT plan optimization algorithm through probabilistic treatment planning (PTP) and compare coverage of this method with margin-based planning. In this work, PTP eliminates explicit margins and optimizes directly on the estimated integral treatment dose to determine optimal patient dose in the presence of setup uncertainties. Twenty-eight prostate patient plans adhering to the RTOG-0126 criteria are optimized using both margin-based and PTP methods. Only random errors are considered. For margin-based plans, the planning target volume is created by expanding the clinical target volume (CTV) by 2.1 mm to accommodate the simulated 3 mm random setup uncertainty. Random setup uncertainties are incorporated into IMRT dose evaluation by convolving each beam's incident fluence with a sigma = 3 mm Gaussian prior to dose calculation. PTP optimization uses the convolved fluence to estimate dose to ensure CTV coverage during plan optimization. PTP-based plans are compared to margin-based plans with equal CTV coverage in the presence of setup errors based on dose-volume metrics. The sensitivity of the optimized plans to patient-specific setup uncertainty variations is assessed by evaluating dose metrics for dose distributions corresponding to halving and doubling of the random setup uncertainty used in the optimization. Margin-based and PTP-based plans show similar target coverage. A physician review shows that PTP is preferred for 21 patients, margin-based plans are preferred in 2 patients, no preference is expressed for 1 patient, and both autogenerated plans are rejected for 4 patients. For the PTP-based plans, the average CTV receiving the prescription dose decreases by 0.5%, while the mean dose to the CTV increases by 0.7%. The CTV tumor control probability (TCP) is the same for both methods with the exception of one case in which PTP gave a slightly higher TCP. For critical structures that do not meet the optimization criteria, PTP shows a decrease in the volume receiving the maximum specified dose. PTP reduces local normal tissue volumes receiving the maximum dose on average by 48%. PTP results in lower mean dose to all critical structures for all plans. PTP results in a 2.5% increase in the probability of uncomplicated control (P+), along with a 1.9% reduction in rectum normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and a 0.7% reduction in bladder NTCP. PTP-based plans show improved conformality as compared with margin-based plans with an average PTP-based dosimetric margin at 7100 cGy of 0.65 cm compared with the margin-based 0.90 cm and a PTP-based dosimetric margin at 3960 cGy of 1.60 cm compared with the margin-based 1.90 cm. PTP-based plans show similar sensitivity to variations of the uncertainty during treatment from the uncertainty used in planning as compared to margin-based plans. For equal target coverage, when compared to margin-based plans, PTP results in equal or lower doses to normal structures. PTP results in more conformal plans than margin-based plans and shows similar sensitivity to variations in uncertainty.

Coverage-based treatment planning: optimizing the IMRT PTV to meet a CTV coverage criterion

This work demonstrates an iterative approach-referred to as coverage-based treatment planning-designed to produce treatment plans that ensure target coverage for a specified percentage of setup errors. In this approach the clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-to-PTV) margin is iteratively adjusted until the specified CTV coverage is achieved. The advantage of this approach is that it automatically compensates for the dosimetric margin around the CTV, i.e., the extra margin that is created when the dose distribution extends beyond the PTV. When applied to 27 prostate plans, this approach reduced the average CTV-to-PTV margin from 5 to 2.8 mm. This reduction in PTV size produced a corresponding decrease in the volume of normal tissue receiving high dose. The total volume of tissue receiving > or =65 Gy was reduced on average by 19.3% or about 48 cc. Individual reductions varied from 8.7% to 28.6%. The volume of bladder receiving > or =60 Gy was reduced on average by 5.6% (reductions for individuals varied from 1.7% to 10.6%), and the volume of periprostatic rectum receiving > or =65 Gy was reduced on average by 4.9% (reductions for individuals varied from 0.9% to 12.3%). The iterative method proposed here represents a step toward a probabilistic treatment planning algorithm which can generate dose distributions (i.e., treated volumes) that closely approximate a specified level of coverage in the presence of geometric uncertainties. The general principles of coverage-based treatment planning are applicable to arbitrary treatment sites and delivery techniques. Importantly, observed deviations between coverage implied by specified CTV-to-PTV margins and coverage achieved by a given treatment plan imply a generic need to perform coverage probability analysis on a per-plan basis to ensure that the desired level of coverage is achieved.

Dosimetric impact of intrafractional patient motion in pediatric brain tumor patients

The purpose of this study was to determine the dosimetric consequences of intrafractional patient motion on the clinical target volume (CTV), spinal cord, and optic nerves for non-sedated pediatric brain tumor patients. The patients were immobilized for treatment using a customized thermoplastic full-face mask and bite-block attached to an array of reflectors. The array was optically tracked by infra-red cameras at a frequency of 10 Hz. Patients were localized based on skin/mask marks and weekly films were taken to ensure proper setup. Before each noncoplanar field was delivered, the deviation from baseline of the array was recorded. The systematic error (SE) and random error (RE) were calculated. Direct simulation of the intrafractional motion was used to quantify the dosimetric changes to the targets and critical structures. Nine patients utilizing the optical tracking system were evaluated. The patient cohort had a mean of 31 +/- 1.5 treatment fractions; motion data were acquired for a mean of 26 +/- 6.2 fractions. The mean age was 15.6 +/- 4.1 years. The SE and RE were 0.4 and 1.1 mm in the posterior-anterior, 0.5 and 1.0 mm in left-right, and 0.6 and 1.3 mm in superior-inferior directions, respectively. The dosimetric effects of the motion on the CTV were negligible; however, the dose to the critical structures was increased. Patient motion during treatment does affect the dose to critical structures, therefore, planning risk volumes are needed to properly assess the dose to normal tissues. Because the motion did not affect the dose to the CTV, the 3-mm PTV margin used is sufficient to account for intrafractional motion, given the patient is properly localized at the start of treatment.