Kentaro Miki

Carbon-Ion Pencil Beam Scanning Treatment With Gated Markerless Tumor Tracking: An Analysis of Positional Accuracy

PURPOSE Having implemented amplitude-based respiratory gating for scanned carbon-ion beam therapy, we sought to evaluate its effect on positional accuracy and throughput. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 10 patients with tumors of the lung and liver participated in the first clinical trials at our center. Treatment planning was conducted with 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) under free-breathing conditions. The planning target volume (PTV) was calculated by adding a 2- to 3-mm setup margin outside the clinical target volume (CTV) within the gating window. The treatment beam was on when the CTV was within the PTV. Tumor position was detected in real time with a markerless tumor tracking system using paired x-ray fluoroscopic imaging units. RESULTS The patient setup error (mean ± SD) was 1.1 ± 1.2 mm/0.6 ± 0.4°. The mean internal gating accuracy (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.5 mm. If external gating had been applied to this treatment, the mean gating accuracy (95% CI) would have been 4.1 mm. The fluoroscopic radiation doses (mean ± SD) were 23.7 ± 21.8 mGy per beam and less than 487.5 mGy total throughout the treatment course. The setup, preparation, and irradiation times (mean ± SD) were 8.9 ± 8.2 min, 9.5 ± 4.6 min, and 4.0 ± 2.4 min, respectively. The treatment room occupation time was 36.7 ± 67.5 min. CONCLUSIONS Internal gating had a much higher accuracy than external gating. By the addition of a setup margin of 2 to 3 mm, internal gating positional error was less than 2.2 mm at 95% CI.

Implementation of a target volume design function for intrafractional range variation in a particle beam treatment planning system

OBJECTIVE Treatment planning for charged particle therapy in the thoracic and abdominal regions should take account of range uncertainty due to intrafractional motion. Here, we developed a design tool (4Dtool) for the target volume [field-specific target volume (FTV)], which accounts for this uncertainty using four-dimensional CT (4DCT). METHODS Target and normal tissue contours were input manually into a treatment planning system (TPS). These data were transferred to the 4Dtool via the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Contours at the reference phase were propagated to other phases by deformable image registration. FTV was calculated using 4DCT on the 4Dtool. The TPS displays FTV contours using digital imaging and communications in medicine files imported from the PACS. These treatment parameters on the CT image at the reference phase were then used for dose calculation on the TPS. The tool was tested in single clinical case randomly selected from patients treated at our centre for lung cancer. RESULTS In this clinical case, calculation of dose distribution with the 4Dtool resulted in the successful delivery of carbon-ion beam at the reference phase of 95% of the prescribed dose to the clinical target volume (CTV). Application to the other phases also provided sufficient dose to the CTV. CONCLUSION The 4Dtool software allows the design of the target volume with consideration to intrafractional range variation and is now in routine clinical use at our institution. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Our alternative technique represents a practical approach to four-dimensional treatment planning within the current state of charged particle therapy.

Dose escalation study with respiratory-gated carbon-ion scanning radiotherapy using a simultaneous integrated boost for pancreatic cancer: simulation with four-dimensional computed tomography

OBJECTIVE Pancreatic cancer is a difficult to treat disease with a persistently high mortality rate. We evaluated dose distribution simulation with respiratory-gated carbon-ion pencil beam scanning (C-PBS) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to increase tumour dose, sparing organs at risk (OARs). METHODS Using four-dimensional CT data of 12 patients, we delineated gross tumour volume and two clinical target volumes (CTVs). To consider beam range intrafractional uncertainty, we calculated field-specific target volumes, from which two planning target volumes (PTVs) were generated. PTV1 would receive a planned dose of 55.2 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted absorbed dose] in 12 fractions, and PTV2 would receive an SIB dose up to 67.2 Gy (RBE). Dose assessments were conducted with regard to the targets and OARs. RESULTS CTV2 dose covering 95% of the volume (D95%) increased from 50.3 ± 5.1 Gy (RBE) to 62.5 ± 3.5 Gy (RBE) for a planned dose from 55.2 Gy (RBE) to 67.2 Gy (RBE). For 4 of 12 patients with a distance of ≥5 mm between the tumour and the gastrointestinal tract, CTV2 D95% was ≥95% of planned dose at all dose levels. CONCLUSION We quantified dose escalation with respiratory-gated C-PBS using SIB for pancreatic cancer and revealed that OAR dose was not affected to the same degree as the tumour dose. Advances in knowledge: A simulation study on respiratory-gated C-PBS with SIB for pancreatic cancer was performed. The results indicated the feasibility of dose escalation for pancreatic cancer, which should be confirmed in clinical trials.

Gated carbon-ion scanning treatment for pancreatic tumour with field specific target volume and organs at risk.

OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of treatment planning for pancreatic tumours subject to respiratory motion using field-specific target volumes (FTV) and field-specific organs at risk (FOAR) using four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT). METHODS Fourteen pancreatic cancer patients underwent 4DCT. Radiation oncologists contoured the gross tumour volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), spinal cord, duodenum, kidneys, and stomach. The gating duty cycle was set to 30 % around exhalation. FTV and FOAR were calculated using the 4DCT dataset. Planning target volumes (PTV) and planning organs at risk volumes (PRV) were defined as equal to FTV and FOAR, respectively. A dose of 55.2Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) was planned to target the PTV from four beam angles. A single field uniform dose (SFUD) plan was selected. The dose distribution, including intrafractional motion changes, was generated. RESULTS The mean volume of target receiving 95 % of the planned doses was 96.4±4.1 % to the GTV and 94.7±0.9 % to the CTV. The highest dose to 2cc of duodenal volume was 27.5Gy (RBE). The volume of the stomach receiving ⩾30Gy (RBE) was <7.0cc in all patients. All metrics for OARs satisfied dose constraints. CONCLUSION Dose to the CTV was covered sufficiently by the 4DCT-generated FTV, and dose to OARs was reduced by 4DCT-generated FOAR. This methodology may prevent adverse reactions while preserving local tumour control.

Development of fast patient position verification software using 2D-3D image registration and its clinical experience.

To improve treatment workflow, we developed a graphic processing unit (GPU)-based patient positional verification software application and integrated it into carbon-ion scanning beam treatment. Here, we evaluated the basic performance of the software. The algorithm provides 2D/3D registration matching using CT and orthogonal X-ray flat panel detector (FPD) images. The participants were 53 patients with tumors of the head and neck, prostate or lung receiving carbon-ion beam treatment. 2D/3D-ITchi-Gime (ITG) calculation accuracy was evaluated in terms of computation time and registration accuracy. Registration calculation was determined using the similarity measurement metrics gradient difference (GD), normalized mutual information (NMI), zero-mean normalized cross-correlation (ZNCC), and their combination. Registration accuracy was dependent on the particular metric used. Representative examples were determined to have target registration error (TRE) = 0.45 ± 0.23 mm and angular error (AE) = 0.35 ± 0.18° with ZNCC + GD for a head and neck tumor; TRE = 0.12 ± 0.07 mm and AE = 0.16 ± 0.07° with ZNCC for a pelvic tumor; and TRE = 1.19 ± 0.78 mm and AE = 0.83 ± 0.61° with ZNCC for lung tumor. Calculation time was less than 7.26 s.The new registration software has been successfully installed and implemented in our treatment process. We expect that it will improve both treatment workflow and treatment accuracy.

Effect of patient positioning on carbon-ion therapy planned dose distribution to pancreatic tumors and organs at risk.

PURPOSE Pancreatic tumor treatment dose distribution variations associated with supine and prone patient positioning were evaluated. METHODS A total of 33 patients with pancreatic tumors who underwent CT in the supine and prone positions were analyzed retrospectively. Gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), and organs at risk (OARs) (duodenum and stomach) were contoured. The prescribed dose of 55.2Gy (RBE) was planned from four beam angles (0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°). Patient collimator and compensating boli were designed for each field. Dose distributions were calculated for each field in the supine and prone positions. To improve dose distribution, patient positioning was selected from supine or prone for each beam field. RESULTS Compared with conventional beam angle and patient positioning, D2cc of 1st-2nd portion of duodenum (D1-D2), 3rd-4th portion of duodenum (D3-D4), and stomach could be reduced to a maximum of 6.4Gy (RBE), 3.5Gy (RBE), and 4.5Gy (RBE) by selection of patient positioning. V10 of D1-D2, D3-D4, and stomach could be reduced to a maximum of 7.2cc, 11.3cc, and 11.5cc, respectively. D95 of GTV and PTV were improved to a maximum of 6.9% and 3.7% of the prescribed dose, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Optimization of patient positioning for each beam angle in treatment planning has the potential to reduce OARs dose maintaining tumor dose in pancreatic treatment.

Evaluation of optimization workflow using design of experiment (DoE) for various field configurations in volumetric-modulated arc therapy

PURPOSE In volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), field configurations such as couch or arc angles are defined manually or using a template. A field configuration is reselected through trial-and-error in the case of undesirable resultant planning. To efficiently plan for desirable quality, configurations should be assessed before dose calculation. Design of experiments (DoE) is an optimization technique that efficiently reveals the influence of inputs on outputs. We developed an original tool using DoE to determine the field configuration selection and evaluated the efficacy of this workflow for clinical practice. METHODS Computed-tomography scans of 17 patients and target structures were acquired retrospectively from a brain tumor treated using a dual-arc VMAT plan. The configurations of the couch, arc, collimator angles, field sizes, and beam energy were determined using DoE. The resultant dose distributions obtained using the DoE-selected configuration were compared with the clinical plan. RESULTS The averaged differences between the DoE and clinical plan for 17 patients of doses to 50% of the planning target volume (PTV-D50%), Brain-D60%, Brain-D30%, Brain stem-D1%, Left eye-D1%, Right eye-D1%, Optic nerve-D1%, and Chiasm-D1% were 0.2 ± 0.5%, -1.0 ± 4.6%, 1.7 ± 3.5%, -2.5 ± 6.7%, -0.2 ± 4.9%, -1.2 ± 3.6%, -2.8 ± 7.3%, and -2.1 ± 5.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our optimization workflow obtained using DoE for various field configurations provided the same or slightly superior plan quality compared with that created by experts. This process is feasible for clinical practice and will efficiently improve treatment quality while removing the influence of the planners experience.

Single-energy metal artefact reduction with CT for carbon-ion radiation therapy treatment planning

OBJECTIVE One approach to improving image quality of CT is to use metal artefact reduction image processing, such as single-energy metal artefact reduction (SEMAR). To quantify the impact of image correction on the quality of carbon-ion dose distribution, treatment planning using SEMAR was evaluated. METHODS Using a head phantom into which metal screws could be inserted, we acquired standard planning CT images. We calculated dose distributions using phantom images with and without metal added, and with and without SEMAR. Hounsfield unit (HU) and dose distribution variation of these images with and without SEMAR were measured using metal-free image subtraction. We similarly analysed the image data sets of two patients with head and neck cancer who had dental implants. RESULTS HU difference between metal-containing images and metal-free images without and with SEMAR were -79.5 ± 97.2 HU and -1.4 ± 19.5 HU on severe artefact area, respectively. The range of dose distribution difference from the prescribed dose between uncorrected and SEMAR-corrected images varied from -19.5% to -3.4% within planning target volume (PTV). PTV-D95 (%) for uncorrected and SEMAR-corrected image data were 82.4% and 95.4%, respectively. For data in patients with metal dental work, PTV-D95 (%) for uncorrected and SEMAR-corrected data were 92.2% and 92.5% (Patient 1), and 90.9% and 95.7% (Patient 2), respectively. CONCLUSION SEMAR algorithm shows promise in improving CT image quality and in ensuring an accurate representation of dose distribution. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE SEMAR may improve treatment accuracy without the need for dental implant extraction in patients with head and neck cancer.

Digital reconstructed radiography with multiple color image overlay for image-guided radiotherapy

Registration of patient anatomical structures to the reference position is a basic part of the patient set-up procedure. Registration of anatomical structures between the site of beam entrance on the patient surface and the distal target position is particularly important. Here, to improve patient positional accuracy during set-up for particle beam treatment, we propose a new visualization methodology using digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs), overlaid DRRs, and evaluation of overlaid DRR images in clinical cases. The overlaid method overlays two DRR images in different colors by dividing the CT image into two CT sections at the distal edge of the target along the treatment beam direction. Since our hospital uses fixed beam ports, the treatment beam angles for this study were set at 0 and 90 degrees. The DRR calculation direction was from the X-ray tube to the imaging device, and set to 180/270 degrees and 135/225 degrees, based on the installation of our X-ray imaging system. Original and overlaid DRRs were calculated using CT data for two patients, one with a parotid gland tumor and the other with prostate cancer. The original and overlaid DRR images were compared. Since the overlaid DRR image was completely separated into two regions when the DRR calculation angle was the same as the treatment beam angle, the overlaid DRR visualization technique was able to provide rich information for aiding recognition of the relationship between anatomical structures and the target position. This method will also be useful in patient set-up procedures for fixed irradiation ports.

Variation in patient position and impact on carbon-ion scanning beam distribution during prostate treatment

OBJECTIVE We assessed the impact of changes in patient position on carbon-ion scanning beam distribution during treatment for prostate cancer. METHODS 68 patients were selected. Carbon-ion scanning dose was calculated. Two different planning target volumes (PTVs) were defined: PTV1 was the clinical target volume plus a set-up margin for the anterior/lateral sides and posterior side, while PTV2 was the same as PTV1 minus the posterior side. Total prescribed doses of 34.4 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)] and 17.2 Gy (RBE) were given to PTV1 and PTV2, respectively. To estimate the influence of geometric variations on dose distribution, the dose was recalculated on the rigidly shifted single planning CT based on two dimensional-three dimensional rigid registration of the orthogonal radiographs before and after treatment for the fraction of maximum positional changes. RESULTS Intrafractional patient positional change values averaged over all patients throughout the treatment course were less than the target registration error = 2.00 mm and angular error = 1.27°. However, these maximum positional errors did not occur in all 12 treatment fractions. Even though large positional changes occurred during irradiation in all treatment fractions, lowest dose encompassing 95% of the target (D95)-PTV1 was >98% of the prescribed dose. CONCLUSION Intrafractional patient positional changes occurred during treatment beam irradiation and degraded carbon-ion beam dose distribution. Our evaluation did not consider non-rigid deformations, however, dose distribution was still within clinically acceptable levels. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Inter- and intrafractional changes did not affect carbon-ion beam prostate treatment accuracy.