Werner De Gersem

Radiotherapy of prostate cancer with or without intensity modulated beams: a planning comparison

PURPOSE To evaluate whether intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) by static segmented beams allows the dose to the main portion of the prostate target to escalate while keeping the maximal dose at the anterior rectal wall at 72 Gy. The value of such IMRT plans was analyzed by comparison with non-IMRT plans using the same beam incidences. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed a planning study on the CT data of 32 consecutive patients with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Three fields in the transverse plane with gantry angles of 0 degrees, 116 degrees, and 244 degrees were isocentered at the center of gravity of the target volume (prostate and seminal vesicles). The geometry of the beams was determined by beams eye view autocontouring of the target volume with a margin of 1.5 cm. In study 1, the beam weights were determined by a human planner (3D-man) or by computer optimization using a biological objective function with (3D-optim-lim) or without (3D-optim-unlim) a physical term to limit target dose inhomogeneity. In study 2, the 3 beam incidences mentioned above were used and in-field uniform segments were added to allow IMRT. Plans with (IMRT-lim) or without (IMRT-unlim) constraints on target dose inhomogeneity were compared. In the IMRT-lim plan, target dose inhomogeneity was constrained between 15% and 20%. After optimization, plans in both studies were normalized to a maximal rectal dose of 72 Gy. Biological (tumor control probability [TCP], normal tissue complication probability [NTCP]) and physical indices for tumor control and normal tissue complication probabilities were computed, as well as the probability of the uncomplicated local control (P+). RESULTS The IMRT-lim plan was superior to all other plans concerning TCP (p < 0.0001). The IMRT-unlim plan had the worst TCP. Within the 3D plans, the 3D-optim-unlim had the best TCP, which was significantly different from the 3D-optim-lim plan (p = 0.0003). For rectal NTCP, both IMRT plans were superior to all other plans (p < 0.0001). The IMRT-unlim plan was significantly better than the IMRT-lim plan (p < 0.0001). Again, 3D-optim-unlim was superior to the other 3D plans (p < 0. 0007). Physical endpoints for target showed the mean minimal target dose to be the lowest in the IMRT-unlim plan, caused by a large target dose inhomogeneity (TDI). Medial target dose, 90th percentile, and maximal target dose were significantly higher in both IMRT plans. Physical endpoints for the rectum showed the IMRT-unlim plan to be superior compared to all other plans. There was a strong correlation between the 65th percentile (Rp65) and rectal NTCP (correlation coefficient > or =89%). For bladder, maximal bladder dose was significantly higher in the IMRT-unlim plan compared to all other plans (p < or = 0.0001).P+ was significantly higher in both IMRT-plans than in all other plans. The 3D-optim-unlim plan was significantly better than the two other 3D plans (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION IMRT significantly increases the ratio of TCP over NTCP of the rectum in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, constraints for TDI are needed, because a high degree of TDI reduced minimal target dose. IMRT improved uncomplicated local control probability. In our department, IMRT by static segmented beams is planned and delivered in a cost-effective way. IMRT-lim has replaced non-modulated conformal radiotherapy as the standard treatment for prostate cancer.

Accuracy of patient dose calculation for lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, convolution/superposition, and pencil beam computations

The accuracy of dose computation within the lungs depends strongly on the performance of the calculation algorithm in regions of electronic disequilibrium that arise near tissue inhomogeneities with large density variations. There is a lack of data evaluating the performance of highly developed analytical dose calculation algorithms compared to Monte Carlo computations in a clinical setting. We compared full Monte Carlo calculations (performed by our Monte Carlo dose engine MCDE) with two different commercial convolution/superposition (CS) implementations (Pinnacle-CS and Helax-TMSs collapsed cone model Helax-CC) and one pencil beam algorithm (Helax-TMSs pencil beam model Helax-PB) for 10 intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) lung cancer patients. Treatment plans were created for two photon beam qualities (6 and 18 MV). For each dose calculation algorithm, patient, and beam quality, the following set of clinically relevant dose-volume values was reported: (i) minimal, median, and maximal dose (Dmin, D50, and Dmax) for the gross tumor and planning target volumes (GTV and PTV); (ii) the volume of the lungs (excluding the GTV) receiving at least 20 and 30 Gy (V20 and V30) and the mean lung dose; (iii) the 33rd percentile dose (D33) and Dmax delivered to the heart and the expanded esophagus; and (iv) Dmax for the expanded spinal cord. Statistical analysis was performed by means of one-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements and Tukey pairwise comparison of means. Pinnacle-CS showed an excellent agreement with MCDE within the target structures, whereas the best correspondence for the organs at risk (OARs) was found between Helax-CC and MCDE. Results from Helax-PB were unsatisfying for both targets and OARs. Additionally, individual patient results were analyzed. Within the target structures, deviations above 5% were found in one patient for the comparison of MCDE and Helax-CC, while all differences between MCDE and Pinnacle-CS were below 5%. For both Pinnacle-CS and Helax-CC, deviations from MCDE above 5% were found within the OARs: within the lungs for two (6 MV) and six (18 MV) patients for Pinnacle-CS, and within other OARs for two patients for Helax-CC (for Dmax of the heart and D33 of the expanded esophagus) but only for 6 MV. For one patient, all four algorithms were used to recompute the dose after replacing all computed tomography voxels within the patients skin contour by water. This made all differences above 5% between MCDE and the other dose calculation algorithms disappear. Thus, the observed deviations mainly arose from differences in particle transport modeling within the lungs, and the commissioning of the algorithms was adequately performed (or the commissioning was less important for this type of treatment). In conclusion, not one pair of the dose calculation algorithms we investigated could provide results that were consistent within 5% for all 10 patients for the set of clinically relevant dose-volume indices studied. As the results from both CS algorithms differed significantly, care should be taken when evaluating treatment plans as the choice of dose calculation algorithm may influence clinical results. Full Monte Carlo provides a great benchmarking tool for evaluating the performance of other algorithms for patient dose computations.

Adaptive Dose Painting by Numbers for Head-and-Neck Cancer

PURPOSE To investigate the feasibility of adaptive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using dose painting by numbers (DPBN) for head-and-neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Each patients treatment used three separate treatment plans: fractions 1-10 used a DPBN ([(18)-F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography [(18)F-FDG-PET]) voxel intensity-based IMRT plan based on a pretreatment (18)F-FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) scan; fractions 11-20 used a DPBN plan based on a (18)F-FDG-PET/CT scan acquired after the eighth fraction; and fractions 21-32 used a conventional (uniform dose) IMRT plan. In a Phase I trial, two dose prescription levels were tested: a median dose of 80.9 Gy to the high-dose clinical target volume (CTV(high_dose)) (dose level I) and a median dose of 85.9 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) (dose level II). Between February 2007 and August 2009, 7 patients at dose level I and 14 patients at dose level II were enrolled. RESULTS All patients finished treatment without a break, and no Grade 4 acute toxicity was observed. Treatment adaptation (i.e., plans based on the second (18)F-FDG-PET/CT scan) reduced the volumes for the GTV (41%, p = 0.01), CTV(high_dose) (18%, p = 0.01), high-dose planning target volume (14%, p = 0.02), and parotids (9-12%, p < 0.05). Because the GTV was much smaller than the CTV(high_dose) and target adaptation, further dose escalation at dose level II resulted in less severe toxicity than that observed at dose level I. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this represents the first clinical study that combines adaptive treatments with dose painting by numbers. Treatment as described above is feasible.

An implementation strategy for IMRT of ethmoid sinus cancer with bilateral sparing of the optic pathways.

PURPOSE To develop a protocol for the irradiation of ethmoid sinus cancer, with the aim of sparing binocular vision; of developing a strategy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning that produces dose distributions that (1) are consistent with the protocol prescriptions and (2) are deliverable by static segmental IMRT techniques within a 15-minute time slot; of fine tuning the implementation strategy to a class solution approach that is sufficiently automated and efficient, allowing routine clinical application; of reporting on the early clinical implementation involving 11 patients between February 1999 and July 2000. patients and methods: Eleven consecutive T1-4N0M0 ethmoid sinus cancer patients were enrolled in the study. For Patients 1-8, a first protocol was implemented, defining a planning target volume prescription dose of 60 to 66 Gy in 30-33 fractions and a maximum dose (Dmax) of 50 Gy to optic pathway structures and spinal cord and limit of 60 Gy to brainstem. For Patients 9-11, an adapted (now considered mature) protocol was implemented, defining a (planning target volume) prescription dose of 70 Gy in 35 fractions and a Dmax to optic pathway structures and brainstem of 60 Gy and to spinal cord of 50 Gy. RESULTS The class solution-directed strategy developed during this study reduced the protocol translation process from a few days to about 2 hours of planner time. The mature class solution involved the use of 7 beam incidences (20-37 segments), which could be delivered within a 15-minute time slot. Acute side effects were limited and mild. None of the patients developed dry eye syndrome or other visual disturbances. The follow-up period is too short for detection of retinopathy or optic nerve and chiasm toxicity. CONCLUSION Conventional radiotherapy of ethmoid sinus tumors is associated with serious morbidity, including blindness. We hypothesize that IMRT has the potential to save binocular vision. The dose to the optic pathway structures can be reduced selectively by IMRT. Further enrollment of patients and longer follow-up will show whether the level of reduction tested by the clinical protocol is sufficient to save binocular vision. An adaptive strategy of IMRT planning was too inefficient for routine clinical practice. A class solution-directed strategy improved efficiency by eliminating human trial and error during the IMRT planning process.

Whole abdominopelvic radiotherapy (WAPRT) using intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT): First clinical experience

PURPOSE Whole abdominopelvic radiation therapy (WAPRT) is a treatment option in the palliation of patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. With conventional techniques, kidneys and liver are the dose- and homogeneity-limiting organs. We developed a planning strategy for intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) and report on the treatment plans of the first 5 treated patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS Five consecutive patients with histologically proven relapsed ovarian cancer were sent to our department for WAPRT. The target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were delineated on 0.5-cm-thick CT slices. The clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the total peritoneal cavity. CTV and kidneys were expanded with 0.5 cm. In a preset range of 8 degrees interspaced gantry angles, machine states were generated with an anatomy-based segmentation tool. Machine states of the same class were stratified in arcs. The optimization of IMAT was done in several steps, using a biophysical objective function. These steps included weight optimization of machine states, leaf position optimization adapted to meet the maximal leaf speed constraint, and planner-interactive optimization of the start and stop angles. The final control points (machine states plus associated cumulative monitor unit counts) were calculated using a collapsed cone convolution/superposition algorithm. For comparison, two conventional plans (CONV) were made, one with two fields (CONV2), and one with four fields (CONV4). In these CONV plans, dose to the kidneys was limited by cerrobend blocks. The IMAT and the CONV plans were normalized to a median dose of 33 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Monomer/polymer gel dosimetry was used to assess the dosimetric accuracy of the IMAT planning and delivery method. RESULTS The median volume of the PTV was 8306 cc. The mean treatment delivery time over 4 patients was 13.8 min. A mean of 444 monitor units was needed for a fraction dose of 150 cGy. The fraction of the PTV volume receiving more than 90% of the prescribed dose (V(90)) was 9% higher for the IMAT plan than for the CONV4 plan (89.9% vs. 82.5%). Outside a build-up region of 0.8 cm and 1 cm away from both kidneys, the inhomogeneity in the PTV was 15.1% for the IMAT plans and 24.9% for the CONV4 plans (for CONV2 plans, this was 34.9%). The median dose to the kidneys in the IMAT plans was lower for all patients. The 95th percentile dose for the kidneys was significantly higher for the IMAT plans than for the CONV4 and CONV2 plans (28.2 Gy vs. 22.2 Gy and 22.6 Gy for left kidney, respectively). No relevant differences were found for liver. The gel-measured dose was within clinical planning constraints. CONCLUSION IMAT was shown to be deliverable in an acceptable time slot and to produce dose distributions that are more homogeneous than those obtained with a CONV plan, with at least equal sparing of the OARs.

Leaf position optimization for step-and-shoot IMRT

PURPOSE To describe the theoretical basis, the algorithm, and implementation of a tool that optimizes segment shapes and weights for step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivered by multileaf collimators. METHODS AND MATERIALS The tool, called SOWAT (Segment Outline and Weight Adapting Tool) is applied to a set of segments, segment weights, and corresponding dose distribution, computed by an external dose computation engine. SOWAT evaluates the effects of changing the position of each collimating leaf of each segment on an objective function, as follows. Changing a leaf position causes a change in the segment-specific dose matrix, which is calculated by a fast dose computation algorithm. A weighted sum of all segment-specific dose matrices provides the dose distribution and allows computation of the value of the objective function. Only leaf position changes that comply with the multileaf collimator constraints are evaluated. Leaf position changes that tend to decrease the value of the objective function are retained. After several possible positions have been evaluated for all collimating leaves of all segments, an external dose engine recomputes the dose distribution, based on the adapted leaf positions and weights. The plan is evaluated. If the plan is accepted, a segment sequencer is used to make the prescription files for the treatment machine. Otherwise, the user can restart SOWAT using the new set of segments, segment weights, and corresponding dose distribution. The implementation was illustrated using two example cases. The first example is a T1N0M0 supraglottic cancer case that was distributed as a multicenter planning exercise by investigators from Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The exercise involved a two-phase plan. Phase 1 involved the delivery of 46 Gy to a concave-shaped planning target volume (PTV) consisting of the primary tumor volume and the elective lymph nodal regions II-IV on both sides of the neck. Phase 2 involved a boost of 24 Gy to the primary tumor region only. SOWAT was applied to the Phase 1 plan. Parotid sparing was a planning goal. The second implementation example is an ethmoid sinus cancer case, planned with the intent of bilateral visus sparing. The median PTV prescription dose was 70 Gy with a maximum dose constraint to the optic pathway structures of 60 Gy. RESULTS The initial set of segments, segment weights, and corresponding dose distribution were obtained, respectively, by an anatomy-based segmentation tool, a segment weight optimization tool, and a differential scatter-air ratio dose computation algorithm as external dose engine. For the supraglottic case, this resulted in a plan that proved to be comparable to the plans obtained at the other institutes by forward or inverse planning techniques. After using SOWAT, the minimum PTV dose and PTV dose homogeneity increased; the maximum dose to the spinal cord decreased from 38 Gy to 32 Gy. The left parotid mean dose decreased from 22 Gy to 19 Gy and the right parotid mean dose from 20 to 18 Gy. For the ethmoid sinus case, the target homogeneity increased by leaf position optimization, together with a better sparing of the optical tracts. CONCLUSIONS By using SOWAT, the plans improved with respect to all plan evaluation end points. Compliance with the multileaf collimator constraints is guaranteed. The treatment delivery time remains almost unchanged, because no additional segments are created.

Maximum tolerated dose in a phase I trial on adaptive dose painting by numbers for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in a phase I trial on adaptive dose-painting-by-numbers (DPBN) for non-metastatic head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Adaptive intensity-modulated radiotherapy was based on voxel intensity of pre-treatment and per-treatment [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET) scans. Dose was escalated to a median total dose of 80.9 Gy in the high-dose clinical target volume (dose level I) and 85.9 Gy in the gross tumor volume (dose level II). The MTD would be reached, if ≥ 33% of patients developed any grade ≥ 4 toxicity (DLT) up to 3 months follow-up. RESULTS Between February 2007 and August 2009, seven patients at dose level I and 14 at dose level II were treated. All patients completed treatment without interruption. At a median follow-up for surviving patients of 38 (dose level I) and 22 months (dose level II) there was no grade ≥ 4 toxicity during treatment and follow-up but six cases of mucosal ulcers at latency of 4-10 months, of which five (36%) were observed at dose level II. Mucosal ulcers healed spontaneously in four patients. CONCLUSIONS Considering late mucosal ulcers as DLT, the MTD of a median dose of 80.9 Gy has been reached in our trial.

Volumetric Arc Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Primary Prostate Radiotherapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost to Intraprostatic Lesion With 6 and 18 MV: A Planning Comparison Study

PURPOSE The aim of the present study was to compare intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), in the treatment of prostate cancer with maximal dose escalation to the intraprostatic lesion (IPL), without violating the organ-at-risk constraints. Additionally, the use of 6-MV photons was compared with 18-MV photons for all techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 12 consecutive prostate cancer patients with an IPL on magnetic resonance imaging were selected for the present study. Plans were made for three IMRT field setups (three, five, and seven fields) and one VMAT field setup (single arc). First, optimal plans were created for every technique using biologic and physical planning aims. Next, an additional escalation to the IPL was planned as high as possible without violating the planning aims of the first step. RESULTS No interaction between the technique and photon energy (p=.928) occurred. No differences were found between the 6- and 18-MV photon beams, except for a reduction in the number of monitor units needed for 18 MV (p<.05). All techniques, except for three-field IMRT, allowed for dose escalation to a median dose of ≥93±6 Gy (mean±standard deviation) to the IPL. VMAT was superior to IMRT for rectal volumes receiving 20-50 Gy (p<.05). CONCLUSION VMAT allowed for dose escalation to the IPL with better sparing of the rectum than static three-, five-, and seven-field IMRT setups. High-energy photons had no advantage over low-energy photons.

Three-phase adaptive dose-painting-by-numbers for head-and-neck cancer: initial results of the phase I clinical trial

PURPOSE To evaluate feasibility of using deformable image co-registration in three-phase adaptive dose-painting-by-numbers (DPBN) for head-and-neck cancer and to report dosimetrical data and preliminary clinical results. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between November 2010 and October 2011, 10 patients with non-metastatic head-and-neck cancer enrolled in this phase I clinical trial where treatment was adapted every ten fractions. Each patient was treated with three DPBN plans based on: a pretreatment 18[F]-FDG-PET scan (phase I: fractions 1-10), a per-treatment 18[F]-FDG-PET/CT scan acquired after 8 fractions (phase II: fractions 11-20) and a per-treatment 18[F]-FDG-PET/CT scan acquired after 18 fractions (phase III: fractions 21-30). A median prescription dose to the dose-painted target was 70.2 Gy (fractions 1-30) and to elective neck was 40 Gy (fractions 1-20). Deformable image co-registration was used for automatic region-of-interest propagation and dose summation of the three treatment plans. RESULTS All patients (all men, median age 68, range 48-74 years) completed treatment without any break or acute G≥4 toxicity. Target volume reductions (mean (range)) between pre-treatment CT and CT on the last day of treatment were 72.3% (57.9-98.4) and 46.3% (11.0-73.1) for GTV and PTV(high_dose), respectively. Acute G3 toxicity was limited to dysphagia in 3/10 patients and mucositis in 2/10 patients; none of the patients lost ≥20% weight. At median follow-up of 13, range 7-22 months, 9 patients did not have evidence of disease. CONCLUSIONS Three-phase adaptive 18[F]-FDG-PET-guided dose painting by numbers using currently available tools is feasible. Irradiation of smaller target volumes might have contributed to mild acute toxicity with no measurable decrease in tumor response.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer in previously irradiated territory☆

PURPOSE To evaluate re-irradiation using IMRT for recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer in previously irradiated territory. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between 1997 and 2008, 84 patients with recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer were treated with IMRT to a median dose of 69 Gy. Median time interval between initial radiotherapy and re-irradiation was 49.5 (5.2-298.3) months. Salvage surgery preceded re-irradiation in 19 patients; 17 patients received concurrent chemotherapy. RESULTS Median follow-up of living patients was 19.8 (1.9-76.1) months. Five-year locoregional control and overall survival were 40% and 20%, respectively. Five-year disease-specific survival and disease-free survival were 29% and 15%, respectively. Stage T4 (p=0.015), time interval between initial treatment and re-irradiation (p=0.011) and hypopharyngeal cancer (p=0.013) were independent prognostic factors for worse overall survival in multivariate analysis. Twenty-six and 11 patients developed Grade 3 acute and late toxicity, respectively. No Grade 5 acute toxicity was encountered. There were 2 fatal vascular ruptures during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS High-dose IMRT for recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer in previously irradiated territory leads to approximately 20% long-term survival in a non-selected patient population. Identification of patients who would benefit most of curative IMRT is warranted.