Joanna Góra

Dosimetric Considerations to Determine the Optimal Technique for Localized Prostate Cancer Among External Photon, Proton, or Carbon-Ion Therapy and High-Dose-Rate or Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy

PURPOSE To assess the dosimetric differences among volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), scanned proton therapy (intensity-modulated proton therapy, IMPT), scanned carbon-ion therapy (intensity-modulated carbon-ion therapy, IMIT), and low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ten patients were considered for this planning study. For external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), planning target volume was created by adding a margin of 5 mm (lateral/anterior-posterior) and 8 mm (superior-inferior) to the clinical target volume. Bladder wall (BW), rectal wall (RW), femoral heads, urethra, and pelvic tissue were considered as organs at risk. For VMAT and IMPT, 78 Gy(relative biological effectiveness, RBE)/2 Gy were prescribed. The IMIT was based on 66 Gy(RBE)/20 fractions. The clinical target volume planning aims for HDR-BT ((192)Ir) and LDR-BT ((125)I) were D(90%) ≥34 Gy in 8.5 Gy per fraction and D(90%) ≥145 Gy. Both physical and RBE-weighted dose distributions for protons and carbon-ions were converted to dose distributions based on 2-Gy(IsoE) fractions. From these dose distributions various dose and dose-volume parameters were extracted. RESULTS Rectal wall exposure 30-70 Gy(IsoE) was reduced for IMIT, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT when compared with VMAT and IMPT. The high-dose region of the BW dose-volume histogram above 50 Gy(IsoE) of IMPT resembled the VMAT shape, whereas all other techniques showed a significantly lower high-dose region. For all 3 EBRT techniques similar urethra D(mean) around 74 Gy(IsoE) were obtained. The LDR-BT results were approximately 30 Gy(IsoE) higher, HDR-BT 10 Gy(IsoE) lower. Normal tissue and femoral head sparing was best with BT. CONCLUSION Despite the different EBRT prescription and fractionation schemes, the high-dose regions of BW and RW expressed in Gy(IsoE) were on the same order of magnitude. Brachytherapy techniques were clearly superior in terms of BW, RW, and normal tissue sparing, with lowest values for HDR-BT.

ART for head and neck patients: On the difference between VMAT and IMPT.

Abstract Anatomical changes in the head-and-neck (H&N) region during the course of treatment can cause deteriorated dose distributions. Different replanning strategies were investigated for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Material and methods. For six H&N patients two repeated computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) (CT1/MR1 at week 2 and CT2/MR2 at week 4) scans were acquired additionally to the initial planning CT/MR. Organs-at-risk (OARs) and three targets (CTV70Gy, CTV63Gy, CTV56Gy) were delineated on MRs and transferred to respective CT data set. Simultaneously integrated boost plans were created using VMAT (two arcs) and IMPT (four beams). To assess the need of replanning the initial VMAT and IMPT plans were recalculated on repeated CTs. Furthermore, VMAT and IMPT plans were replanned on the repeated CTs. A Demon algorithm was used for deformable registration of the repeated CTs with the initial CT and utilized for dose accumulation. Total dose estimations were performed to compare ART versus standard treatment strategies. Results. Dosimetric evaluation of recalculated plans on CT1 and CT2 showed increasing OAR doses for both, VMAT and IMPT. The target coverage of recalculated VMAT plans was considered acceptable in three cases, while for all IMPT plans it dropped. Adaptation of the treatment reduced D2% for brainstem by 6.7 Gy for VMAT and by 8 Gy for IMPT, for particular patients. These D2% reductions were reaching 9 Gy and 14 Gy for the spinal cord. ART improved target dose homogeneity, especially for protons, i.e. D2% decreased by up to 8 Gy while D98% increased by 1.2 Gy. Conclusion. ART showed benefits for both modalities. However, as IMPT is more conformal, the magnitude of dosimetric changes was more pronounced compared to VMAT. Large anatomic variations had a severe impact on treatment plan quality for both VMAT and IMPT. ART is justified in those cases irrespective of treatment modalities.

Performance validation of deformable image registration in the pelvic region

Patients undergoing radiotherapy will inevitably show anatomical changes during the course of treatment. These can be weight loss, tumour shrinkage, and organ motion or filling changes. For advanced and adaptive radiotherapy (ART) information about anatomical changes must be extracted from repeated images in order to be able to evaluate and manage these changes. Deformable image registration (DIR) is a tool that can be used to efficiently gather information about anatomical changes. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of two DIR methods for automatic organ at risk (OAR) contour propagation. Datasets from ten gynaecological patients having repeated computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were collected. Contours were delineated on the planning CT and on every repeated scan by an expert clinician. DIR using our in-house developed featurelet-based method and the iPlan® BrainLab treatment planning system software was performed with the planning CT as reference and a selection of repeated scans as the target dataset. The planning CT contours were deformed using the resulting deformation fields and compared to the manually defined contours. Dices similarity coefficients (DSCs) were calculated for each fractional patient scan structure, comparing the volume overlap using DIR with that using rigid registration only. No significant improvement in volume overlap was found after DIR as compared with rigid registration, independent of which image modality or DIR method was used. DIR needs to be further improved in order to facilitate contour propagation in the pelvic region in ART approaches.

Is There an Advantage in Designing Adapted, Patient-Specific PTV Margins in Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE To investigate robust margin strategies in intensity modulated proton therapy to account for interfractional organ motion in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS For 9 patients, one planning computed tomography (CT) scan and daily and weekly cone beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired and coregistered. The following planning target volume (PTV) approaches were investigated: a clinical target volume (CTV) delineated on the planning CT (CTV(ct)) plus 10-mm margin (PTV(10mm)); a reduced PTV (PTV(Red)): CTV(ct) plus 5 mm in the left-right (LR) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions and 8 mm in the inferior-superior (IS) directions; and a PTV(Hull) method: the sum of CTV(ct) and CTVs from 5 CBCTs from the first week plus 3 mm in the LR and IS directions and 5 mm in the AP direction. For each approach, separate plans were calculated using a spot-scanning technique with 2 lateral fields. RESULTS Each approach achieved excellent target coverage. Differences were observed in volume receiving 98% of the prescribed dose (V(98%)) where PTV(Hull) and PTV(Red) results were superior to the PTV(10mm) concept. The PTV(Hull) approach was more robust to organ motion. The V(98%) for CTVs was 99.7%, whereas for PTV(Red) and PTV(10mm) plans, V(98%) was 98% and 96.1%, respectively. Doses to organs at risk were higher for PTV(Hull) and PTV(10mm) plans than for PTV(Red), but only differences between PTV(10mm) and PTV(Red) were significant. CONCLUSIONS In terms of organ sparing, the PTV(10mm) method was inferior but not significantly different from the PTV(Red) and PTV(Hull) approaches. PTV(Hull) was most insensitive to target motion.

The technological basis for adaptive ion beam therapy at MedAustron: Status and outlook

The ratio of patients who need a treatment adaptation due to anatomical variations at least once during the treatment course is significantly higher in light ion beam therapy (LIBT) than in photon therapy. The ballistic behaviour of ion beams makes them more sensitive to changes. Hence, the delivery of LIBT has always been supported by state of art image guidance. On the contrary CBCT technology was adapted for LIBT quite late. Adaptive concepts are being implemented more frequently in photon therapy and also efficient workflows are needed for LIBT. The MedAustron Ion Beam Therapy Centre was designed to allow the clinical implementation of adaptive image-guided concepts. The aim of this paper is to describe the current status and the potential future use of the technology installed at MedAustron. Specifically addressed is the beam delivery system, the patient alignment system, the treatment planning system as well as the Record & Verify system. Finally, an outlook is given on how high quality X-ray imaging, MR image guidance, fast and automated treatment planning as well as in vivo range verification methods could be integrated.

Is there room for combined modality treatments? Dosimetric comparison of boost strategies for advanced head and neck and prostate cancer

The purpose of the study was to determine the dosimetric difference between three emerging treatment modalities—volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated carbon ion beam therapy (IMIT)—for two tumour sites where selective boosting of the tumour is applied. For 10 patients with locally advanced head and neck (H&N) cancer and 10 with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) a VMAT plan was generated for PTVinitial that included lymph node regions, delivering 50 Gy (IsoE) for H&N and 50.4 Gy (IsoE) for PC patients. Furthermore, separate boost plans (VMAT, IMPT and IMIT) were created to boost PTVboost up to 70 Gy (IsoE) and 78 Gy (IsoE) for H&N and PC cases, respectively. Doses to brainstem, myelon, larynx and parotid glands were assessed for H&N cases. Additionally, various OARs (e.g. cochlea, middle ear, masticator space) were evaluated that are currently discussed with respect to quality of life after treatment. For PC cases, bladder, rectum and femoral heads were considered as OARs. For both tumour sites target goals were easily met. Looking at OAR sparing, generally VMAT + VMAT was worst. VMAT + IMIT had the potential to spare some structures in very close target vicinity (such as cochlea, middle ear, masticator space ) significantly better than VMAT + IMPT. Mean doses for rectal and bladder wall were on average 4 Gy (IsoE) and 1.5 Gy (IsoE) higher, respectively, compared to photons plus particles scenarios. Similar results were found for parotid glands and larynx. Concerning target coverage, no significant differences were observed between the three treatment concepts. Clear dosimetric benefits were observed for particle beam therapy as boost modality. However, the clinical benefit of combined modality treatments remains to be demonstrated.

OC-0344: Is there room for combined modality treatments - Comparison of boost strategies for advanced H&N and prostate cancer

Conclusions: A systematic reduction of air pockets within CTV occurs over treatment course. While these anatomical changes don’t affect so much the dosimetric outcome in term of OAR irradiation, a not negligible degradation of target coverage and dose homogeneity is pointed-out. In some cases this degradation couldn’t be clinically tolerable. If re-planning is performed on the first control CT the stability of dose distributions over the remaining treatment time improves.