Dataset Information

Multi-isocentric 4π volumetric-modulated arc therapy approach for head and neck cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore the feasibility of multi-isocentric 4π volumetric-modulated arc therapy (MI4π-VMAT) for the complex targets of head and neck cancers.

Methods

Twenty-five previously treated patients of HNC underwent re-planning to improve the dose distributions with either coplanar VMAT technique (CP-VMAT) or noncoplanar MI4π-VMAT plans. The latter, involving 3-6 noncoplanar arcs and 2-3 isocenters were re-optimized using the same priorities and objectives. Dosimetric comparison on standard metrics from dose-volume histograms was performed to appraise relative merits of the two techniques. Pretreatment quality assurance was performed with IMRT phantoms to assess deliverability and accuracy of the MI4π-VMAT plans. The gamma agreement index (GAI) analysis with criteria of 3 mm distance to agreement (DTA) and 3% dose difference (DD) was applied.

Results

CP-VMAT and MI4π-VMAT plans achieved the same degree of coverage for all target volumes related to near-to-minimum and near-to-maximum doses. MI4π-VΜΑΤ plans resulted in an improved sparing of organs at risk. The average mean dose reduction to the parotids, larynx, oral cavity, and pharyngeal muscles were 3 Gy, 4 Gy, 5 Gy, and 4.3 Gy, respectively. The average maximum dose reduction to the brain stem, spinal cord, and oral cavity was 6.0 Gy, 3.8 Gy, and 2.4 Gy. Pretreatment QA results showed that plans can be reliably delivered with mean gamma agreement index of 97.0 ± 1.1%.

Conclusions

MI4π-VMAT plans allowed to decrease the dose-volume-metrics for relevant OAR and results are reliable from a dosimetric standpoint. Early clinical experience has begun and future studies will report treatment outcome.

SUBMITTER: Subramanian VS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5874945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.