Dataset Information

Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer.

ABSTRACT: To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods.The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95% and D5%) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.The DVHB showed that the width at D95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D95%: 3.28 vs 3.00; D5%: 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT.The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter-dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

SUBMITTER: Liu W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4983261 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov - Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer.

Liu Wei W Patel Samir H SH Shen Jiajian Jason JJ Hu Yanle Y Harrington Daniel P DP Ding Xiaoning X Halyard Michele Y MY Schild Steven E SE Wong William W WW Ezzell Gary A GA Bues Martin M

Practical radiation oncology 20160213 6

<h4>Background</h4>To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH ...[more]

PMID: 27025166

Similar Datasets

Project description:This work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso-center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

Project description:This dosimetric study investigated the impact of multileaf collimators (MLC) leaf width in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancers (HNC), either with a "standard" simultaneously integrated boost technique (S-SIB) or with a "dose painting" SIB technique (DP-SIB). HNC patients were planned either with an S-SIB comprising three dose levels, from 56 to 70 Gy (16 patients), or with a DP-SIB comprising five dose levels, from 56 to 84 Gy (8 patients), in 35 fractions. Two VMAT plans were calculated for each SIB technique using two Elekta MLCs: MLCi2 with 10 mm leaf width and Beam Modulator (BM) with 4 mm leaf width. Dose distributions were evaluated by comparing doses on PTVs, main OARs, and healthy tissue, and by comparing conformation indexes. Treatment efficiencies were evaluated by comparing the number of monitor units and the number of needed arcs. Comparisons of the two MLCs depending on the two SIB techniques showed: i) Regarding PTVs: Dmean and D2% on lower doses PTV decreased respectively by 0.5 Gy (p = 0.01) and 0.9 Gy (p = 0.01) with BM than with MLCi2 for S-SIB; no significant difference was found for DP-SIB;ii) Regarding OARs: for spinal cord and brainstem, D2% decreased respectively by 1.2 Gy (p = 0.03) and 4.2 Gy (p = 0.04) with BM than with MLCi2 for S-SIB; for controlateral parotid, D50% decreased by 1.5 Gy (p = 0.01) with BM than with MLCi2 for S-SIB; iii) Regarding treatment efficiency: the number of monitor units was 44% (p = 0.00) and 51% (p = 0.01) higher with BM for S-SIB and DP-SIB, respectively. Two arcs were more frequently needed with BM to reach an acceptable dose distribution. This study demonstrated that Beam Modulator (4 mm leaf width) and MLCi2 (10 mm leaf width) MLCs from Elekta provided satisfactory dose distributions for treatment delivery with VMAT technique for complex HNC cases with standard and dose painting prescriptions. OAR sparing was better with BM, mainly for brainstem and spinal cord. However, delivery efficiency of VMAT plans was better with MLCi2.

Project description:Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a new plan feature (planomics feature) for predicting the results of patient-specific quality assurance using the head and neck (H&N) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan. Methods: One hundred and thirty-one H&N VMAT plans in our institution from 2019 to 2021 were retrospectively collected. Dosimetric verification for all plans was carried out using the portal dosimetry system integrated into the Eclipse treatment planning system based on the electronic portal imaging devices. Gamma passing rates (GPR) were analyzed using three gamma indices of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm with a 10% dose threshold. Forty-eight conventional features affecting the dose delivery accuracy were used in the study, and 2,476 planomics features were extracted based on the radiotherapy plan file. Three prediction and classification models using conventional features (CF), planomics features (PF), and hybrid features (HF) combining two sets of features were constructed by the gradient boosting regressor (GBR) and Ridge classifier for each GPR of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively. The absolute prediction error (APE) and the area under the curve (AUC) were adopted for assessing the performance of prediction and classification models. Results: In the GPR prediction, the average APE of the models using CF, PF, and HF was 1.3 ± 1.2%/3.6 ± 3.0%, 1.7 ± 1.5%/3.8 ± 3.5%, and 1.1 ± 1.0%/4.1 ± 3.1% for 2%/2 mm; 0.7 ± 0.6%/2.0 ± 2.0%, 1.0±1.1%/2.2 ± 1.8%, and 0.6 ± 0.6%/2.2 ± 1.9% for 3%/2 mm; and 0.4 ± 0.3%/1.2 ± 1.2%, 0.4±0.5%/1.3 ± 1.0%, and 0.3±0.3%/1.2 ± 1.1% for 3%/3 mm, respectively. In the regression prediction, three models give a similar modeling performance for predicting the GPR. The classification results were 0.67 ± 0.03/0.66 ± 0.07, 0.77 ± 0.03/0.73 ± 0.06, and 0.78 ± 0.02/0.75 ± 0.04 for 3%/3 mm, respectively. For 3%/2 mm, the AUCs of the training and testing cohorts were 0.64 ± 0.03/0.62 ± 0.07, 0.70 ± 0.03/0.67 ± 0.06, and 0.75 ± 0.03/0.71 ± 0.07, respectively, and for 2%/2 mm, the average AUCs of the training and testing cohorts were 0.72 ± 0.03/0.72 ± 0.06, 0.78 ± 0.04/0.73 ± 0.07, and 0.81 ± 0.03/0.75 ± 0.06, respectively. In the classification, the PF model has a better classification performance than the CF model. Moreover, the HF model provides the best result among the three classifications models. Conclusions: The planomics features can be used for predicting and classifying the GPR results and for improving the model performance after combining the conventional features for the GPR classification.

Project description:PurposePlanning studies to compare x-ray and proton techniques and to select the most suitable technique for each patient have been hampered by the nonequivalence of several aspects of treatment planning and delivery. A fair comparison should compare similarly advanced delivery techniques from current clinical practice and also assess the robustness of each technique. The present study therefore compared volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and single-field optimization (SFO) spot scanning proton therapy plans created using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for dose escalation in midesophageal cancer and analyzed the effect of setup and range uncertainties on these plans.Methods and materialsFor 21 patients, SIB plans with a physical dose prescription of 2 Gy or 2.5 Gy/fraction in 25 fractions to planning target volume (PTV)50Gy or PTV62.5Gy (primary tumor with 0.5 cm margins) were created and evaluated for robustness to random setup errors and proton range errors. Dose-volume metrics were compared for the optimal and uncertainty plans, with P<.05 (Wilcoxon) considered significant.ResultsSFO reduced the mean lung dose by 51.4% (range 35.1%-76.1%) and the mean heart dose by 40.9% (range 15.0%-57.4%) compared with VMAT. Proton plan robustness to a 3.5% range error was acceptable. For all patients, the clinical target volume D98 was 95.0% to 100.4% of the prescribed dose and gross tumor volume (GTV) D98 was 98.8% to 101%. Setup error robustness was patient anatomy dependent, and the potential minimum dose per fraction was always lower with SFO than with VMAT. The clinical target volume D98 was lower by 0.6% to 7.8% of the prescribed dose, and the GTV D98 was lower by 0.3% to 2.2% of the prescribed GTV dose.ConclusionsThe SFO plans achieved significant sparing of normal tissue compared with the VMAT plans for midesophageal cancer. The target dose coverage in the SIB proton plans was less robust to random setup errors and might be unacceptable for certain patients. Robust optimization to ensure adequate target coverage of SIB proton plans might be beneficial.

Dataset Information

Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer.

Publications

Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets