Analysis of the Influence of Peripheral Anatomical Changes for CBCT-Guided Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Evaluating the geometric and dosimetric impact of applying anisotropic CTV to PTV margins in image-guided post-prostatectomy radiation therapy

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins in post-prostatectomy radiation therapy (PPRT) are varied and often not clearly defined. Assessment of appropriateness of margins is commonly measured on prevalence of geographic miss.

METHODS

Cone-beam CT (CBCT) images (n = 92) for 10 PPRT patients were incorporated to provide on-treatment information on the appropriateness of six different CTV expansion margins in terms of geographic miss and change in dose-volume statistics for CTV, rectum and bladder. Uniform margins included 10 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm + 5 mm posteriorly and 5 mm + 3 mm posteriorly. In addition, two anisotropic margins were evaluated by separating the superior and inferior portions of the CTV before expansion. Treatment plans were created for each PTV retrospectively.

RESULTS

The frequency of geographic miss was the smallest for the large uniform expansions but resulted in the highest organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. Geographic miss in the smaller uniform and anisotropic PTVs was more prevalent but commonly to a small volume < 1% of CTV. When averaged over all CBCT fractions, V95% dose for all CTV margins remained > 99%. The anisotropic expansions generated smaller irradiated target volumes and consequently saw up to 7.3% reduction in bladder dose when compared with similar uniform expansion margins.

CONCLUSION

Supplementing the incidence of geographic miss with dosimetric information on target coverage and OAR doses provides more informed assessment of the appropriateness of different CTV expansion margins. Our study extends the evaluation of anisotropic margins for PPRT.

Dosimetric impacts of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based anatomic changes in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer

Background

To evaluate the effects of dose to tumors and organs at risk (OARs) on inter-fractional anatomic changes.

Methods

We evaluated nine patients with cervical cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) (45 Gy in 25 fractions) using kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance once or twice a week before treatment. For each patient, the original plan on the computed tomography (CT) image was copied to merged images, and then the fractional doses were calculated. Subsequently, deformable accumulated doses were obtained by summing the fractional absolute doses into a single dose in MIM Maestro software. The volume changes in the target and OARs were compared between the original CT and merged CBCT images, and the differences in the fractional and accumulated doses were also evaluated.

Results

Sixty-nine merged CBCT images were obtained and analyzed in this study. For the target areas, the volume changes in the clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) reached -18.05% and -24.11% at most, respectively. The fractional D_2% of the CTV and PTV was generally higher than the original plans, and the accumulated deviations were 2.27%±0.82% (P<0.01) and 2.42%±1.28% (P<0.01), respectively. The fractional D_98% of the PTV was underdosed up to 18.28% for 78% of patients, and the accumulated deviations were -2.06% to -17.29% (P<0.05). For the OARs, the bladder volume changes were the most dramatic, reducing up to 93.60%. The fractional Dmean and D_2cc of the bladder were generally higher than the original plans, and there were significant differences in their accumulated values (P<0.05). There was no obvious trend of rectal volume change with -69.65% to 74.20%. The rectum D_mean and D_2cc of the accumulated were not significantly different from the planned dose (P>0.05).

Conclusions

For patients with cervical cancer, the changes in bladder and rectal volume were greater than in the target volume. Although the volume changes in the bladder and rectum had no significant effect on D_98% of the CTV and PTV, they had a significant effect on their own D_2cc and the D_2% of the CTV and PTV. More attention should be paid to the volume changes in the bladder and rectum in clinical work.

Evaluating the impact of possible interobserver variability in CBCT-based soft-tissue matching using TCP/NTCP models for prostate cancer radiotherapy

Background

Prostate alignment is subject to interobserver variability in cone-beam CT (CBCT)-based soft-tissue matching. This study aims to analyze the impact of possible interobserver variability in CBCT-based soft-tissue matching for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Methods

Retrospective data, consisting of 156 CBCT images from twelve prostate cancer patients with elective nodal irradiation were analyzed in this study. To simulate possible interobserver variability, couch shifts of 2 mm relative to the resulting patient position of prostate alignment were assumed as potential patient positions (27 possibilities). For each CBCT, the doses of the potential patient positions were re-calculated using deformable image registration-based synthetic CT. The impact of the simulated interobserver variability was evaluated using tumor control probabilities (TCPs) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs).

Results

No significant differences in TCPs were found between prostate alignment and potential patient positions (0.944 ± 0.003 vs 0.945 ± 0.003, P = 0.117). The average NTCPs of the rectum ranged from 5.16 to 7.29 (%) among the potential patient positions and were highly influenced by the couch shift in the anterior–posterior direction. In contrast, the average NTCPs of the bladder ranged from 0.75 to 1.12 (%) among the potential patient positions and were relatively negligible.

Conclusions

The NTCPs of the rectum, rather than the TCPs of the target, were highly influenced by the interobserver variability in CBCT-based soft-tissue matching. This study provides a theoretical explanation for daily CBCT-based image guidance and the prostate-rectum interface matching procedure.

Trial registration: Not applicable.