Shingo Ohira

Can clinically relevant dose errors in patient anatomy be detected by gamma passing rate or modulation complexity score in volumetric-modulated arc therapy for intracranial tumors?

Abstract We investigated whether methods conventionally used to evaluate patient-specific QA in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for intracranial tumors detect clinically relevant dosimetric errors. VMAT plans with coplanar arcs were designed for 37 intracranial tumors. Dosimetric accuracy was validated by using a 3D array detector. Dose deviations between the measured and planned doses were evaluated by gamma analysis. In addition, modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv) for each plan was calculated. Three-dimensional dose distributions in patient anatomy were reconstructed using 3DVH software, and clinical deviations in dosimetric parameters between the 3DVH doses and planned doses were calculated. The gamma passing rate (GPR)/MCSv and the clinical dose deviation were evaluated using Pearsons correlation coefficient. Significant correlation (P < 0.05) between the clinical dose deviation and GPR was observed with both the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria in clinical target volume (D99), brain (D2), brainstem (D2) and chiasm (D2), albeit that the correlations were not ‘strong’ (0.38 < |r| < 0.54). The maximum dose deviations of brainstem were up to 4.9 Gy and 2.9 Gy for Dmax and D%, respectively in the case of high GPR (98.2% with 3%/3 mm criteria). Regarding MCSv, none of the evaluated organs showed a significant correlation with clinical dose deviation, and correlations were ‘weak’ or absent (0.01 < |r| < 0.21). The use of high GPR and MCSv values does not always detect dosimetric errors in a patient. Therefore, in-depth analysis with the DVH for patient-specific QA is considered to be preferable for guaranteeing safe dose delivery.

Couch height–based patient setup for abdominal radiation therapy

There are 2 methods commonly used for patient positioning in the anterior-posterior (A-P) direction: one is the skin mark patient setup method (SMPS) and the other is the couch height-based patient setup method (CHPS). This study compared the setup accuracy of these 2 methods for abdominal radiation therapy. The enrollment for this study comprised 23 patients with pancreatic cancer. For treatments (539 sessions), patients were set up by using isocenter skin marks and thereafter treatment couch was shifted so that the distance between the isocenter and the upper side of the treatment couch was equal to that indicated on the computed tomographic (CT) image. Setup deviation in the A-P direction for CHPS was measured by matching the spine of the digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) of a lateral beam at simulation with that of the corresponding time-integrated electronic portal image. For SMPS with no correction (SMPS/NC), setup deviation was calculated based on the couch-level difference between SMPS and CHPS. SMPS/NC was corrected using 2 off-line correction protocols: no action level (SMPS/NAL) and extended NAL (SMPS/eNAL) protocols. Margins to compensate for deviations were calculated using the Stroom formula. A-P deviation > 5mm was observed in 17% of SMPS/NC, 4% of SMPS/NAL, and 4% of SMPS/eNAL sessions but only in one CHPS session. For SMPS/NC, 7 patients (30%) showed deviations at an increasing rate of > 0.1mm/fraction, but for CHPS, no such trend was observed. The standard deviations (SDs) of systematic error (Σ) were 2.6, 1.4, 0.6, and 0.8mm and the root mean squares of random error (σ) were 2.1, 2.6, 2.7, and 0.9mm for SMPS/NC, SMPS/NAL, SMPS/eNAL, and CHPS, respectively. Margins to compensate for the deviations were wide for SMPS/NC (6.7mm), smaller for SMPS/NAL (4.6mm) and SMPS/eNAL (3.1mm), and smallest for CHPS (2.2mm). Achieving better setup with smaller margins, CHPS appears to be a reproducible method for abdominal patient setup.

Assessment with cone-beam computed tomography of intrafractional motion and interfractional position changes of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic tumours with implanted fiducial marker

OBJECTIVE The volume of targets to which a high radiation dose can be delivered is limited for pancreatic radiotherapy. We assessed changes in movements of pancreatic tumours between simulation and treatment and determined compensatory margins. METHODS For 23 patients, differences in implanted fiducial marker motion magnitude (MMM) and mean marker position (MMP) between four-dimensional CT and cone-beam CT were measured. Subsequently, residual uncertainty was simulated after no action level (NAL) and extended no action level (eNAL) protocols were adopted. RESULTS With no correction, respective 95th percentile of MMM were 4.5 mm, 6.2 mm and 16.0 mm and systematic (random) errors of MMP were 2.8 mm (3.3 mm), 3.2 mm (2.0 mm) and 5.9 mm (4.0 mm) in the left-right (L-R), anteroposterior (A-P) and superoinferior (S-I) directions, so that large margins were required (L-R, 10.5 mm; A-P, 11.7 mm; and S-I, 24.8 mm). NAL reduced systematic errors of MMP, but resultant margins remained large (L-R, 8.0 mm; A-P, 9.6 mm; and S-I, 18.1 mm). eNAL compensated for time trends and obtained minimal margins (L-R, 6.7 mm; A-P, 6.7 mm; and S-I, 15.2 mm). CONCLUSION Motion magnitude and position of pancreatic tumours during simulation are frequently not representative of that during treatment. eNAL compensated for systematic interfractional position change and would be a practical approach for improving targeting accuracy. Advances in knowledge: Considerably large margins, especially in the S-I direction, were required to compensate for intrafractional motion and interfractional position changes of the pancreatic tumour. An application of eNAL was an effective strategy to diminish these margins.

Effect of various methods for rectum delineation on relative and absolute dose-volume histograms for prostate IMRT treatment planning

Several reports have dealt with correlations of late rectal toxicity with rectal dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for high dose levels. There are 2 techniques to assess rectal volume for reception of a specific dose: relative-DVH (R-DVH, %) that indicates relative volume for a vertical axis, and absolute-DVH (A-DVH, cc) with its vertical axis showing absolute volume of the rectum. The parameters of DVH vary depending on the rectum delineation method, but the literature does not present any standardization of such methods. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different delineation methods on rectal DVHs. The enrollment for this study comprised 28 patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, who had undergone intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with the prescription dose of 78Gy. The rectum was contoured with 4 different methods using 2 lengths, short (Sh) and long (Lg), and 2 cross sections, rectum (Rec) and rectal wall (Rw). Sh means the length from 1cm above the seminal vesicles to 1cm below the prostate and Lg the length from the rectosigmoid junction to the anus. Rec represents the entire rectal volume including the rectal contents and Rw the rectal volume of the area with a wall thickness of 4mm. We compared dose-volume parameters by using 4 rectal contour methods for the same plan with the R-DVHs as well as the A-DVHs. For the high dose levels, the R-DVH parameters varied widely. The mean of V70 for Sh-Rw was the highest (19.4%) and nearly twice as high as that for Lg-Rec (10.4%). On the contrary, only small variations were observed in the A-DVH parameters (4.3, 4.3, 5.5, and 5.5cc for Sh-Rw, Lg-Rw, Sh-Rec, and Lg-Rec, respectively). As for R-DVHs, the parameters of V70 varied depending on the rectal lengths (Sh-Rec vs Lg-Rec: R = 0.76; Sh-Rw vs Lg-Rw: R = 0.85) and cross sections (Sh-Rec vs Sh-Rw: R = 0.49; Lg-Rec vs Lg-Rw: R = 0.65). For A-DVHs, however, the parameters of Sh rectal A-DVHs hardly changed regardless of differences in rectal length at all dose levels. Moreover, at high dose levels (V70), the parameters of A-DVHs showed less dependence on rectal cross sections (Sh-Rec vs Sh-Rw: R = 0.66; Lg-Rec vs Lg-Rw: R = 0.59). This study showed that A-DVHs were less dependent on the delineation methods than R-DVHs, especially for evaluating the rectal dose at higher dose levels. It can therefore be assumed that, in addition to R-DVHs, A-DVHs can be used for evaluating rectal toxicity.

VMAT–SBRT planning based on an average intensity projection for lung tumors located in close proximity to the diaphragm: a phantom and clinical validity study

The aim of the this study was to validate the use of an average intensity projection (AIP) for volumetric-modulated arc therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy (VMAT–SBRT) planning for a moving lung tumor located near the diaphragm. VMAT–SBRT plans were created using AIPs reconstructed from 10 phases of 4DCT images that were acquired with a target phantom moving with amplitudes of 5, 10, 20 and 30 mm. To generate a 4D dose distribution, the static dose for each phase was recalculated and the doses were accumulated by using the phantom position known for each phase. For 10 patients with lung tumors, a deformable registration was used to generate 4D dose distributions. Doses to the target volume obtained from the AIP plan and the 4D plan were compared, as were the doses obtained from each plan to the organs at risk (OARs). In both phantom and clinical study, dose discrepancies for all parameters of the dose volume (Dmin, D99, Dmax, D1 and Dmean) to the target were <3%. The discrepancies of Dmax for spinal cord, esophagus and heart were <1 Gy, and the discrepancy of V20 for lung tissue was <1%. However, for OARs with large respiratory motion, the discrepancy of the Dmax was as much as 9.6 Gy for liver and 5.7 Gy for stomach. Thus, AIP is clinically acceptable as a planning CT image for predicting 4D dose, but doses to the OARs with large respiratory motion were underestimated with the AIP approach.

Preliminary analysis of the sequential simultaneous integrated boost technique for intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancers

The aim of this study was to compare three strategies for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for 20 head-and-neck cancer patients. For simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), doses were 66 and 54 Gy in 30 fractions for PTVboost and PTVelective, respectively. Two-phase IMRT delivered 50 Gy in 25 fractions to PTVelective in the First Plan, and 20 Gy in 10 fractions to PTVboost in the Second Plan. Sequential SIB (SEQ-SIB) delivered 55 Gy and 50 Gy in 25 fractions, respectively, to PTVboost and PTVelective using SIB in the First Plan and 11 Gy in 5 fractions to PTVboost in the Second Plan. Conformity indexes (CIs) (mean ± SD) for PTVboost and PTVelective were 1.09 ± 0.05 and 1.34 ± 0.12 for SIB, 1.39 ± 0.14 and 1.80 ± 0.28 for two-phase IMRT, and 1.14 ± 0.07 and 1.60 ± 0.18 for SEQ-SIB, respectively. CI was significantly highest for two-phase IMRT. Maximum doses (Dmax) to the spinal cord were 42.1 ± 1.5 Gy for SIB, 43.9 ± 1.0 Gy for two-phase IMRT and 40.3 ± 1.8 Gy for SEQ-SIB. Brainstem Dmax were 50.1 ± 2.2 Gy for SIB, 50.5 ± 4.6 Gy for two-phase IMRT and 47.4 ± 3.6 Gy for SEQ-SIB. Spinal cord Dmax for the three techniques was significantly different, and brainstem Dmax was significantly lower for SEQ-SIB. The compromised conformity of two-phase IMRT can result in higher doses to organs at risk (OARs). Lower OAR doses in SEQ-SIB made SEQ-SIB an alternative to SIB, which applies unconventional doses per fraction.

Clinical implementation of contrast-enhanced four-dimensional dual-energy computed tomography for target delineation of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The accurate delineation of pancreatic tumor with respiratory motion is challenging. This study demonstrates the application of contrast-enhanced four-dimensional dual-energy computed tomography (CE-4D-DECT) for tumor delineation and assesses the objective and subjective image quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twelve patients underwent CE-4D-DECT, and quantitative spectral analysis was performed on the resulting virtual monochromatic images (VMI) to determine the optimal VMI (O-VMI) with the highest contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). The objective value of the CNR between pancreatic parenchyma and tumor, and the subjective measurement with five-point scale were compared between O-VMI, standard VMI (S-VMI, 77 keV) and single energy CT (SECT, 120 kVp). RESULTS The CNR was the highest in the VMI at 60 keV, and the corresponding CNR in the O-VMI (3.4) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that in the S-VMI (2.4) and the SECT (2.7). The overall mean subjective measurements among 4 radiation oncologists were higher for the O-VMI over the S-VMI and SECT with respect to overall image quality (4.0, 3.3 and 3.7, respectively), tumor enhancement (3.4, 2.6 and 3.2, respectively), and vessel delineation (4.2, 3.6 and 4.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The O-VMI derived from the CE-4D-DECT demonstrated its superiority over the S-VMI and SECT in depicting pancreatic tumor.

How Well Does Dual-energy CT with Fast Kilovoltage Switching Quantify CT Number and Iodine and Calcium Concentrations?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Because it is imperative for understanding the performance of dual-energy computed tomography scanner to determine clinical diagnosis, we aimed to assess the accuracy of quantitative measurements using dual-energy computed tomography with fast kilovoltage switching. MATERIALS AND METHODS Quantitative measurements were performed for 16 reference materials (physical density, 0.965-1.550 g/cm3; diameter of rod, 2.0-28.5 mm; iodine concentration, 2-15 mg/mL; and calcium concentration, 50-300 mg/mL) with varying scanning settings, and the measured values were compared to their theoretical values. RESULTS For high-density material, the maximum differences in Hounsfield unit values in the virtual monochromatic images at 50, 70, and 100 keV were -176.2, 61.0, and -35.2 HU, respectively, and the standard deviations over short- and long-term periods were 11.1, 6.1, and 3.5 HU at maximum. The accuracy of the Hounsfield unit measurement at 50 and 70 keV was significantly higher (P < 0.05) with higher radiation output and smaller phantom size. The difference in the iodine and calcium measurements in the large phantom were up to -2.6 and -60.4 mg/mL for iodine (5 mg/mL with 2-mm diameter) and calcium (300 mg/mL) materials, and the difference was improved with a small phantom. Metal artifact reduction software improved subjective image quality; however, the quantitative values were significantly underestimated (P < 0.05) (-49.5, -26.9, and -15.3 HU for 50, 70, and 100 keV, respectively; -1.0 and -17 mg/mL for iodine and calcium concentration, respectively) compared to that acquired without a metal material. CONCLUSIONS The accuracy of quantitative measurements can be affected by material density and the size of the object, radiation output, phantom size, and the presence of metal materials.