The dosimetric impact of stabilizing spinal implants in radiotherapy treatment planning with protons and photons: standard titanium alloy vs. radiolucent carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK systems

Background

Throughout the last years, carbon‐fibre‐reinforced PEEK (CFP) pedicle screw systems were introduced to replace standard titanium alloy (Ti) implants for spinal instrumentation, promising improved radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning accuracy. We compared the dosimetric impact of both implants for intensity modulated proton (IMPT) and volumetric arc photon therapy (VMAT), with the focus on uncertainties in Hounsfield unit assignment of titanium alloy.

Methods

Retrospective planning was performed on CT data of five patients with Ti and five with CFP implants. Carbon‐fibre‐reinforced PEEK systems comprised radiolucent pedicle screws with thin titanium‐coated regions and titanium tulips. For each patient, one IMPT and one VMAT plan were generated with a nominal relative stopping power (SP) (IMPT) and electron density (ρ) (VMAT) and recalculated onto the identical CT with increased and decreased SP or ρ by ±6% for the titanium components.

Results

Recalculated VMAT dose distributions hardly deviated from the nominal plans for both screw types. IMPT plans resulted in more heterogeneous target coverage, measured by the standard deviation σ inside the target, which increased on average by 7.6 ± 2.3% (Ti) vs 3.4 ± 1.2% (CFP). Larger SPs lead to lower target minimum doses, lower SPs to higher dose maxima, with a more pronounced effect for Ti screws.

Conclusions

While VMAT plans showed no relevant difference in dosimetric quality between both screw types, IMPT plans demonstrated the benefit of CFP screws through a smaller dosimetric impact of CT‐value uncertainties compared to Ti. Reducing metal components in implants will therefore improve dose calculation accuracy and lower the risk for tumor underdosage.

Multicriteria plan optimization in the hands of physicians: a pilot study in prostate cancer and brain tumors

Background

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of physician driven planning in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a multicriteria optimization (MCO) treatment planning system and template based plan optimization. Exploiting the full planning potential of MCO navigation, this alternative planning approach intends to improve planning efficiency and individual plan quality.

Methods

Planning was retrospectively performed on 12 brain tumor and 10 post-prostatectomy prostate patients previously treated with MCO-IMRT. For each patient, physicians were provided with a template-based generated Pareto surface of optimal plans to navigate, using the beam angles from the original clinical plans. We compared physician generated plans to clinically delivered plans (created by dosimetrists) in terms of dosimetric differences, physician preferences and planning times.

Results

Plan qualities were similar, however physician generated and clinical plans differed in the prioritization of clinical goals. Physician derived prostate plans showed significantly better sparing of the high dose rectum and bladder regions (p(D1) < 0.05; D1: dose received by 1% of the corresponding structure). Physicians’ brain tumor plans indicated higher doses for targets and brainstem (p(D1) < 0.05). Within blinded plan comparisons physicians preferred the clinical plans more often (brain: 6:3 out of 12, prostate: 2:6 out of 10) (not statistically significant). While times of physician involvement were comparable for prostate planning, the new workflow reduced the average involved time for brain cases by 30%. Planner times were reduced for all cases. Subjective benefits, such as a better understanding of planning situations, were observed by clinicians through the insight into plan optimization and experiencing dosimetric trade-offs.

Conclusions

We introduce physician driven planning with MCO for brain and prostate tumors as a feasible planning workflow. The proposed approach standardizes the planning process by utilizing site specific templates and integrates physicians more tightly into treatment planning. Physicians’ navigated plan qualities were comparable to the clinical plans. Given the reduction of planning time of the planner and the equal or lower planning time of physicians, this approach has the potential to improve departmental efficiencies.