Methods for transferring patient and plan data between radiotherapy treatment planning systems

Dosimetric uncertainties of three-dimensional dose reconstruction from two-dimensional data in a multi-institutional study

Inconsistencies in the treatment planning process leading to dosimetric uncertainties may affect conclusions drawn from interinstitutional radiation oncology clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the dosimetric uncertainties resulting from the process of reconstructing three-dimensional dose distributions from two-dimensional treatment plan information provided by participating institutions in a randomized clinical trial. This study was based on American College of Radiology Protocol #427, Locally Advanced Multi-Modality Protocol; a multi-institutional phase II randomized study involving radiation therapy for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Several sources of dosimetric uncertainty were identified and analyzed, including image quality of hard-copy computed tomography (CT) images, slice spacing of CT scans, treatment position, interpretations of target volumes by radiation oncologists, the contouring of normal anatomic structures, and the use of common beam models for all dose calculations. Each source of uncertainty was investigated using a set of plans, with the ideal characteristics of digital images with 3-mm axial slice spacing and a flat couch, consisting of eight cases from Vanderbilt University Medical Center with electronically transferred CT data. The target volume DVH values were dependent on the additional uncertainty introduced by differences in delineation of the target volumes by the participating radiation oncologists. The DVH values for the lungs and heart were dependent on image quality and treatment position. Esophagus DVH values were not dependent on any of the sources of uncertainty. None of the structure DVH values were dependent on slice thickness or variations in the contouring of normal anatomic structures. Reconstruction of three-dimensional dose distributions from two-dimensional treatment plan information may be useful in cases for which digital CT data is not available or for historical data review. However, dosimetric accuracy will depend on image quality of the treatment planning CT data and consistency in the delineation of tumor volumes.

A comparison of coplanar four-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the prostate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Conformal radiotherapy of the prostate is an increasingly common technique, but the optimal choice of beam configuration remains unclear. This study systematically compares a number of coplanar treatment plans for four-field irradiation of two different clinical treatment volumes: prostate only (PO) and the prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A variety of four-field coplanar treatment plans were created for PO and PSV volumes in each of ten patients. Plans included a four-field 'box' plan, a symmetric plan having bilateral anterior and posterior oblique fields, a plan with anterior oblique and lateral fields, a series of asymmetric plans, and a three-field plan having anterior and bilateral fields for comparison. Doses of 64 and 74 Gy were prescribed to the isocentre. Plans were compared using the volume of rectum irradiated to greater than 50% (V50), 80% (V80) and 90% (V90) of the prescribed dose. Tumour control probabilities (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for the rectum, bladder and femoral heads were also evaluated. Femoral head dose was limited such that less than 10% of each femoral head received 70% of the prescribed dose.

RESULTS

For the PO group, the optimal plan consisted of anterior oblique and lateral fields (Rectal V80 = 23.8+/-5.0% (1 SD)), while the box technique (V80 = 26.0+/-5.8%) was less advantageous in terms of rectal sparing (P = 0.001). Similar results were obtained for the PSV group (Rectal V80 = 43.9+/-5.0% and 47.3+/-5.5% for the two plan types, respectively, P = 0.001). The three-field plan was comparable to the optimal four-field plan but gave higher superficial body dose. With dose escalation from 64 to 74 Gy, the mean TCP for the optimal plan rose from 52.0+/-2.8% to 74.1+/-2.0%. Meanwhile, rectal NTCP for the optimal plan rose by 3.5% (PO) or 8.4% (PSV), compared to 4.7% (PO) or 10.1% (PSV) for the box plan.

CONCLUSIONS

For PO volumes, a plan with gantry angles of 35 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees and 325 degrees offers a high level of rectal sparing and acceptable dose to the femoral heads for all patients, while for PSV volumes, the corresponding plan has gantry angles of 20 degrees, 90 degrees , 270 degrees and 340 degrees. Using these plans, the gain in TCP resulting from dose escalation can be achieved with a smaller increase in anticipated rectal NTCP.

Constrained customization of non-coplanar beam orientations in radiotherapy of brain tumours

A methodology for the constrained customization of non-coplanar beam orientations in radiotherapy treatment planning has been developed and tested on a cohort of five patients with tumours of the brain. The methodology employed a combination of single and multibeam cost functions to produce customized beam orientations. The single-beam cost function was used to reduce the search space for the multibeam cost function, which was minimized using a fast simulated annealing algorithm. The scheme aims to produce well-spaced, customized beam orientations for each patient that produce low dose to organs at risk (OARs). The customized plans were compared with standard plans containing the number and orientation of beams chosen by a human planner. The beam orientation constraint-customized plans employed the same number of treatment beams as the standard plan but with beam orientations chosen by the constrained-customization scheme. Improvements from beam orientation constraint-customization were studied in isolation by customizing the beam weights of both plans using a dose-based downhill simplex algorithm. The results show that beam orientation constraint-customization reduced the maximum dose to the orbits by an average of 18.8 (+/-3.8, ISD)% and to the optic nerves by 11.4 (+/-4.8, ISD)% with no degradation of the planning target volume (PTV) dose distribution. The mean doses, averaged over the patient cohort, were reduced by 4.2 (+/-1.1, ISD)% and 12.4 (+/-3.1, ISD)% for the orbits and optic nerves respectively. In conclusion, the beam orientation constraint-customization can reduce the dose to OARs, for few-beam treatment plans, when compared with standard treatment plans developed by a human planner.

A case study comparing the relative benefit of optimizing beam weights, wedge angles, beam orientations and tomotherapy in stereotactic radiotherapy of the brain

A treatment-planning case study has been performed on a patient with a medium-sized, convex brain tumour. The study involved the application of advanced treatment-plan optimization techniques to improve on the dose distribution of the 'standard plan' used to treat the patient. The standard plan was created according to conventional protocol at the Royal Marsden NHS Trust, and consisted of a three-field (one open and two wedged) non-coplanar arrangement, with field shaping to the beam's-eye view of the planning target volume (PTV). Three optimized treatment plans were created corresponding to (i) the optimization of the beam weights and wedge angles of the standard plan, (ii) the optimization of the beam orientations, beam weights and wedge angles of the standard plan, and (iii) a full fluence tomotherapy optimization of 1 cm wide (at isocentre), 270 degree arcs. (i) and (ii) were created on the VOXELPLAN research 3D treatment-planning system, using in-house developed optimization algorithms, and (iii) was created on the PEACOCK tomotherapy planning system. The downhill-simplex optimization algorithm is used, in conjunction with 'threshold-dose' cost-function terms enabling the algorithm to optimize specific regions of the dose-volume histogram (DVH) curve. The 'beam-cost plot' tool is presented as a visual aid to the selection of beneficial beam directions. The methods and pitfalls in the transfer of plans and patient data between the two planning systems are discussed. Each optimization approach was evaluated, relative to the standard plan, on the basis of DVH and dose statistics in the PTV and organs at risk (OARs). All three optimization approaches were able to improve on the dose distribution of the standard plan. The magnitude of the improvement was greater for the optimized beam-orientation and tomotherapy plans (up to 15% and 30% for the maximum and mean OAR doses). A smaller improvement was observed in the beam-weight and wedge-angle optimized plan (up to 5% and 10% in the maximum and mean OAR doses). In the tomotherapy plan, difficulty was encountered achieving an acceptable homogeneity of dose in the PTV. This was improved by treating the gross tumour volume (GTV) and (PTV - GTV) regions as separate targets in the inverse planning, with the latter region prescribed a slightly higher dose to reduce edge under-dosing. In conclusion, for the medium-sized convex tumour studied, the tomotherapy dose distribution showed a significant improvement on the standard plan, but no significant improvement over a conventional three-field plan where the beam orientations, beam weights and wedge angles had been optimized.