Assessing cumulative dose distributions in combined external beam radiotherapy and intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer by treatment planning based on deformable image registration

Review and recommendations on deformable image registration uncertainties for radiotherapy applications

Deformable image registration (DIR) is a versatile tool used in many applications in radiotherapy (RT). DIR algorithms have been implemented in many commercial treatment planning systems providing accessible and easy-to-use solutions. However, the geometric uncertainty of DIR can be large and difficult to quantify, resulting in barriers to clinical practice. Currently, there is no agreement in the RT community on how to quantify these uncertainties and determine thresholds that distinguish a good DIR result from a poor one. This review summarises the current literature on sources of DIR uncertainties and their impact on RT applications. Recommendations are provided on how to handle these uncertainties for patient-specific use, commissioning, and research. Recommendations are also provided for developers and vendors to help users to understand DIR uncertainties and make the application of DIR in RT safer and more reliable.

Determining Combined Modality Dosimetric Constraints by Integration of IMRT and LDR Prostate Brachytherapy Dosimetry and Correlation with Toxicity

Purpose

Intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing combination external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy have demonstrated increased genitourinary (GU) toxicity. We have previously demonstrated a method to combine EBRT and LDR dosimetry. In this work, we use this technique for a sample of patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, correlate with clinical toxicity, and suggest preliminary summed organ-at-risk constraints for future investigation.

Methods and Materials

Intensity modulated EBRT and ¹⁰³Pd-based LDR treatment plans were combined for 138 patients using biological effective dose (BED) and deformable image registration. GU and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were compared with combined dosimetry for the urethra, bladder, and rectum. Differences between doses in each toxicity grade were assessed by analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Combined dosimetric constraints are proposed using the mean organ-at-risk dose, subtracting 1 standard deviation for a conservative recommendation.

Results

The majority of our 138-patient cohort experienced grade 0 to 2 GU or GI toxicity. Six grade 3 toxicities were noted. Mean prostate BED D90 (± 1 standard deviation) was 165.5±11.1 Gy. Mean urethra BED D10 was 230.3±33.9 Gy. Mean bladder BED was 35.2±11.0 Gy. Mean rectum BED D2cc was 85.6±24.3 Gy. Significant dosimetric differences between toxicity grades were found for mean bladder BED, bladder D15, and rectum D50, but differences between individual means were not statistically significant. Given the low incidence of grade 3 GU and GI toxicity, we propose urethra D10 <200 Gy, rectum D2cc <60 Gy, and bladder D15 <45 Gy as preliminary dose constraints for combined modality therapy.

Conclusions

We successfully applied our dose integration technique to a sample of patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Incidence of grade 3 toxicity was low, suggesting that combined doses observed in this study were safe. We suggest preliminary dose constraints as a conservative starting point to investigate and escalate prospectively in a future study.

Evaluation of DIR algorithm performance in real patients for radiotherapy treatments: A systematic review of operator-dependent strategies

PURPOSE

The performance of deformable medical image registration (DIR) algorithms has become a major concern.

METHODS

We aimed to obtain updated information on DIR algorithm performance quantification through a literature review of articles published between 2010 and 2022. We focused only on studies using operator-based methods to treat real patients. The PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase databases were searched following PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven articles were identified. The mean number of patients and registrations per publication was 20 and 63, respectively. We found 23 different geometric metrics appearing at least twice, and the dosimetric impact of DIR was quantified in 32 articles. Forty-eight different at-risk organs were described, and target volumes were studied in 43 publications. Prostate, head-and-neck and thoracic locations represented more than ¾ of the studied locations. We summarized the type of DIR and the images used, and other key elements. Intra/interobserver variability, threshold values and the correlation between metrics were also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This literature review covers the past decade and should facilitate the implementation of DIR algorithms in clinical practice by providing practical and pertinent information to quantify their performance on real patients.