Decision Trees Predicting Tumor Shrinkage for Head and Neck Cancer: Implications for Adaptive Radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To develop decision trees predicting for tumor volume reduction in patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer using pretreatment clinical and pathological parameters. METHODS: Forty-eight patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, oral cavity, or hypopharynx were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were rescanned at a median dose of 37.8 Gy and replanned to account for anatomical changes. The percentages of gross tumor volume (GTV) change from initial to rescan computed tomography (CT; %GTVΔ) were calculated. Two decision trees were generated to correlate %GTVΔ in primary and nodal volumes with 14 characteristics including age, gender, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), site, human papilloma virus (HPV) status, tumor grade, primary tumor growth pattern (endophytic/exophytic), tumor/nodal/group stages, chemotherapy regimen, and primary, nodal, and total GTV volumes in the initial CT scan. The C4.5 Decision Tree induction algorithm was implemented. RESULTS: The median %GTVΔ for primary, nodal, and total GTVs was 26.8%, 43.0%, and 31.2%, respectively. Type of chemotherapy, age, primary tumor growth pattern, site, KPS, and HPV status were the most predictive parameters for primary %GTVΔ decision tree, whereas for nodal %GTVΔ, KPS, site, age, primary tumor growth pattern, initial primary GTV, and total GTV volumes were predictive. Both decision trees had an accuracy of 88%. CONCLUSIONS: There can be significant changes in primary and nodal tumor volumes during the course of H&N chemoradiotherapy. Considering the proposed decision trees, radiation oncologists can select patients predicted to have high %GTVΔ, who would theoretically gain the most benefit from adaptive radiotherapy, in order to better use limited clinical resources.

Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing.

PURPOSE: Because of biologic, medical, and sometimes logistic reasons, patients may be treated with 3D conformal therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the initial treatment volume (PTV(1)) followed by a sequential IMRT boost dose delivered to the boost volume (PTV(2)). In some patients, both PTV(1) and PTV(2) may be simultaneously treated by IMRT (simultaneous integrated boost technique). The purpose of this work was to assess the sequential and simultaneous integrated boost IMRT delivery techniques on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with head-and-neck (H&N), lung, and prostate cancer were selected for this comparative study. Each site included 5 patients. In all patients, the target consisted of PTV(1) and PTV(2). The prescription doses to PTV(1) and PTV(2) were 46 Gy and 66 Gy (H&N cases), 45 Gy and 66.6 Gy (lung cases), 50 Gy and 78 Gy (prostate cases), respectively. The critical structures included the following: spinal cord, parotid glands, and brainstem (H&N structures); spinal cord, esophagus, lungs, and heart (lung structures); and bladder, rectum, femurs (prostate structures). For all cases, three IMRT plans were created: (1) 3D conformal therapy to PTV(1) followed by sequential IMRT boost to PTV(2) (sequential-IMRT(1)), (2) IMRT to PTV(1) followed by sequential IMRT boost to PTV(2) (sequential-IMRT(2)), and (3) Simultaneous integrated IMRT boost to both PTV(1) and PTV(2) (SIB-IMRT). The treatment plans were compared in terms of their dose-volume histograms, target volume covered by 100% of the prescription dose (D(100%)), and maximum and mean structure doses (D(max) and D(mean)). RESULTS: H&N cases: SIB-IMRT produced better sparing of both parotids than sequential-IMRT(1), although sequential-IMRT(2) also provided adequate parotid sparing. On average, the mean cord dose for sequential-IMRT(1) was 29 Gy. The mean cord dose was reduced to approximately 20 Gy with both sequential-IMRT(2) and SIB-IMRT. Prostate cases: The volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy or more (V(>70 Gy)) was reduced to 18.6 Gy with SIB-IMRT from 22.2 Gy with sequential-IMRT(2). SIB-IMRT reduced the mean doses to both bladder and rectum by approximately 10% and approximately 7%, respectively, as compared to sequential-IMRT(2). The mean left and right femur doses with SIB-IMRT were approximately 32% lower than obtained with sequential-IMRT(1). Lung cases: The mean heart dose was reduced by approximately 33% with SIB-IMRT as compared to sequential-IMRT(1). The mean esophagus dose was also reduced by approximately 10% using SIB-IMRT as compared to sequential-IMRT(1). The percentage of the lung volume receiving 20 Gy (V(20 Gy)) was reduced to 26% by SIB-IMRT from 30.6% with sequential-IMRT(1). CONCLUSIONS: For equal PTV coverage, both sequential-IMRT techniques demonstrated moderately improved sparing of the critical structures. SIB-IMRT, however, markedly reduced doses to the critical structures for most of the cases considered in this study. The conformality of the SIB-IMRT plans was also much superior to that obtained with both sequential-IMRT techniques. The improved conformality gained with SIB-IMRT may suggest that the dose to nontarget tissues will be lower.