Clinical Experience With an Offline Adaptive Radiation Therapy Head and Neck Program: Dosimetric Benefits and Opportunities for Patient Selection.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to develop a linear accelerator (LINAC)-based adaptive radiation therapy (ART) workflow for the head and neck that is informed by automated image tracking to identify major anatomic changes warranting adaptation. In this study, we report our initial clinical experience with the program and an investigation into potential trigger signals for ART. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Offline ART was systematically performed on patients receiving radiation therapy for head and neck cancer on C-arm LINACs. Adaptations were performed at a single time point during treatment with resimulation approximately 3 weeks into treatment. Throughout treatment, all patients were tracked using an automated image tracking system called the Automated Watchdog for Adaptive Radiotherapy Environment (AWARE). AWARE measures volumetric changes in gross tumor volumes (GTVs) and selected normal tissues via cone beam computed tomography scans and deformable registration. The benefit of ART was determined by comparing adaptive plan dosimetry and normal tissue complication probabilities against the initial plans recalculated on resimulation computed tomography scans. Dosimetric differences were then correlated with AWARE-measured volume changes to identify patient-specific triggers for ART. Candidate trigger variables were evaluated using receiver operator characteristic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 46 patients received ART in this study. Among these patients, we observed a significant decrease in dose to the submandibular glands (mean ± standard deviation: -219.2 ± 291.2 cGy, P < 10-5), parotids (-68.2 ± 197.7 cGy, P = .001), and oral cavity (-238.7 ± 206.7 cGy, P < 10-5) with the adaptive plan. Normal tissue complication probabilities for xerostomia computed from mean parotid doses also decreased significantly with the adaptive plans (P = .008). We also observed systematic intratreatment volume reductions (ΔV) for GTVs and normal tissues. Candidate triggers were identified that predicted significant improvement with ART, including parotid ΔV = 7%, neck ΔV = 2%, and nodal GTV ΔV = 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic offline head and neck ART was successfully deployed on conventional LINACs and reduced doses to critical salivary structures and the oral cavity. Automated cone beam computed tomography tracking provided information regarding anatomic changes that may aid patient-specific triggering for ART.

Physical performance of adaptive axial FOV PET scanners with a sparse detector block rings or a checkerboard configuration.

Objective.Using Monte-Carlo simulations, we evaluated the physical performance of a hypothetical state-of-the-art clinical PET scanner with adaptive axial field-of-view (AFOV) based on the validated GATE model of the Siemens Biograph VisionTMPET/CT scanner.Approach.Vision consists of 16 compact PET rings, each consisting of 152 mini-blocks of 5 × 5 Lutetium Oxyorthosilicate crystals (3.2 × 3.2 × 20 mm3). The Vision 25.6 cm AFOV was extended by adopting (i) a sparse mini-block ring (SBR) configuration of 49.6 cm AFOV, with all mini-block rings interleaved with 16 mm axial gaps, or (ii) a sparse mini-block checkerboard (SCB) configuration of 51.2 cm AFOV, with all mini-blocks interleaved with gaps of 16 mm (transaxial) × 16 mm (axial) width in checkerboard pattern. For sparse configurations, a 'limited' continuous bed motion (limited-CBM) acquisition was employed to extend AFOVs by 2.9 cm. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, image quality (IQ), NECR and scatter fraction were assessed per NEMA NU2-2012.Main Results.All IQ phantom spheres were distinguishable with all configurations. SBR and SCB percent contrast recovery (% CR) and background variability (% BV) were similar (p-value > 0.05). Compared to Vision, SBR and SCB %CRs were similar (p-values > 0.05). However, SBR and SCB %BVs were deteriorated by 30% and 26% respectively (p-values < 0.05). SBR, SCB and Vision exhibited system sensitivities of 16.6, 16.8, and 15.8 kcps MBq-1, NECRs of 311 kcps @35 kBq cc-1, 266 kcps @25.8 kBq cc-1, and 260 kcps @27.8 kBq cc-1, and scatter fractions of 31.2%, 32.4%, and 32.6%, respectively. SBR and SCB exhibited a smoother sensitivity reduction and noise enhancement rate from AFOV center to its edges. SBR and SCB attained comparable spatial resolution in all directions (p-value > 0.05), yet, up to 1.5 mm worse than Vision (p-values < 0.05).Significance.The proposed sparse configurations may offer a clinically adoptable solution for cost-effective adaptive AFOV PET with either highly-sensitive or long-AFOV acquisitions.