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:BackgroundTo investigate the frequency of temporal lobe necrosis (TLN) soon after radiotherapy (RT) and identify differences among patients with various types of head and neck cancer (HNC) and between different RT methods.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 483 patients with HNC who had completed RT in our hospital after January, 2015. These patients were followed-up at the radio-oncology department and received contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) to identify metastases or recurrence of cancer at regular intervals. Meanwhile, the occurrence of TLN, graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V5.0, was recorded. We categorized the patients into nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and non-NPC groups and compared the cumulative occurrence of TLN between the groups using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. We further compared the cumulative occurrence of TLN between proton beam therapy (PBT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with any HNC, NPC, and non-NPC HNC.ResultsCompared with the non-NPC group, the NPC group had a higher frequency of TLN (5.6% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.01) and were more commonly associated with TLN in the Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.01) and the Cox regression model after covariates were adjusted for (adjusted hazard ratio: 13.35, 95% confidence interval: 1.37-130.61) during the follow-up period. Furthermore, the frequency of TLN was similar between patients receiving PBT and those receiving VMAT (PBT vs. VMAT: 4.7% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.76). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the accumulated risks of TLN were similar between PBT and VMAT in patients with any HNC (p = 0.44), NPC (p = 0.84), and non-NPC HNC (p = 0.70).ConclusionOur study demonstrated that patients with NPC are susceptible to TLN during the early period after RT. In addition, PBT may be associated with an equivalent risk of TLN when compared with VMAT in patients with NPC or other HNCs.

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