Pelvic organ motion and dosimetric implications during horizontal patient rotation for prostate radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Gantry-free radiation therapy systems utilizing patient rotation would be simpler and more cost effective than the conventional gantry-based systems. Such a system could enable the expansion of radiation therapy to meet global demand and reduce capital costs. Recent advances in adaptive radiation therapy could potentially be applied to correct for gravitational deformation during horizontal patient rotation. This study aims to quantify the pelvic organ motion and the dosimetric implications of horizontal rotation for prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments. METHODS: Eight human participants who previously received prostate radiation therapy were imaged in a clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner using a bespoke patient rotation system (PRS). The patients were imaged every 45 degrees during a full roll rotation (0-360 degrees). Whole pelvic bone, prostate, rectum, and bladder motion were compared to the supine position using dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean absolute surface distance (MASD). Prostate centroid motion was compared in the left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) direction prior to and following pelvic bone-guided rigid registration. Seven-field prostate IMRT treatment plans were generated for each patient rotation angles under three adaption scenarios: No plan adaption, rigid planning target volume (PTV)-guided alignment to the prostate, and plan re-optimization. Prostate, rectum, and bladder doses were compared for each adaption scenario. RESULTS: Pelvic bone motion within the PRS of up to 53 mm relative to the supine position was observed for some participants. Internal organ motion was greatest at the 180-degree PRS couch angle (prone), with prostate centroid motion range < 2 mm LR, 0 mm to 14 mm SI, and -11 mm to 4 mm AP. Rotation with no adaption of the treatment plan resulted in an underdose to the PTV -- in some instances up to 75% (D95%: 78 ± 0.3 Gy at supine to 20 ± 15.0 Gy at the 225-degree PRS couch angle). Bladder dose was reduced during the rotation by up to 98% (V60 Gy: 15.0 ± 9.4% supine to 0.3 ± 0.5% at the 225-degree PRS couch angle). In some instances, the rectum dose increased during rotation (V60Gy: 20.0 ± 4.5% supine to 25.0 ± 15.0% at the 135-degree PRS couch angle). Rigid PTV-guided alignment resulted in PTV coverage which, though statistically lower (P < 0.05 for all D95% values), was within 1 Gy of the supine plans. Plan re-optimization resulted in a statistically equivalent PTV coverage compared to the supine plans (P > 0.05 for all D95% metrics and all within ±0.4 Gy). For both rigid PTV-guided alignment and plan re-optimization, rectum dose volume metrics were reduced compared to the supine position between the 90- and 225-degree PRS couch angles (P < 0.05). Bladder dose volume metrics were not impacted by rotation. CONCLUSION: Pelvic bone and internal organ motion are present during patient rotation. Rigid PTV-guided alignment to the prostate will be a requirement if prostate IMRT is to be safely delivered using patient rotation. Plan re-optimization for each PRS couch angle to account for anatomical deformations further improves the PTV coverage.

Anatomical deformation due to horizontal rotation: towards gantry-free radiation therapy.

Gantry-free radiation therapy systems may be simpler and more cost effective, particularly for MRI-guided photon or hadron therapy. This study aims to understand and quantify anatomical deformations caused by horizontal rotation with scan sequences sufficiently short to facilitate integration into an MRI-guided workflow. Rigid and non-rigid pelvic deformations due to horizontal rotation were quantified for a cohort of 8 healthy volunteers using a bespoke patient rotation system and a clinical MRI scanner. For each volunteer a reference scan was acquired at 0° followed by sequential faster scans in 45° increments through to 360°. All fast scans were registered to the 0° image via a three-step process: first, images were aligned using MR visible couch markers. Second, the scans were pre-processed then rigidly registered to the 0° image. Third, the rigidly registered scans were non-rigidly registered to the 0° image to assess soft tissue deformation. The residual differences after rigid and non-rigid registration were determined from the transformation matrix and the deformation vector field, respectively. The rigid registration yielded mean rotations of ⩽2.5° in all cases. The average 3D translational magnitudes range was 5.8 ± 2.9 mm-30.0 ± 11.0 mm. Translations were most significant in the left-right (LR) direction. Smaller translations were observed in the anterior-posterior (AP) and superior-inferior (SI) directions. The maximum deformation magnitudes range was: 10.0 ± 0.9 mm-28.0 ± 2.8 mm and average deformation magnitudes range: 2.3 ± 0.6 mm-7.5 ± 1.0 mm. Average non-rigid deformation magnitude was correlated with BMI (correlation coefficient 0.84, p  = 0.01). Rigid pelvic deformations were most significant in the LR direction but could be accounted for with on-line adjustments. Non-rigid deformations can be significant and will need to be accounted for in order to facilitate the delivery of gantry-free therapy with an automated patient rotation system.

A simple model for transit dosimetry based on a water equivalent EPID.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate a new model for implementing a transit dosimetry system as a means of in vivo dose verification with a water equivalent electronic portal imaging device (WE-EPID) and a conventional treatment planning system (TPS). METHOD AND MATERIALS: A standard amorphous silicon (a-Si) EPID was modified to a WE-EPID configuration by replacing the metal-plate/phosphor screen situated above the photodiode detector with a 3 cm thick water equivalent plastic x ray converter material. A clinical TPS was used to calculate dose to the WE-EPID in its conventional EPID position behind the phantom/patient. The "extended phantom" concept was used to facilitate dose calculation at the EPID position, which is outside the CT field of view (FOV). The CT images were manipulated from 512 × 512 into 1024 × 1024 and padded pixels were assigned the density of air before importing to the TPS. The virtual WE-EPID was added as an RT structure of water density at the EPID plane. The accuracy of TPS dose calculations at the EPID plane in transit geometry was first evaluated for different field sizes and thickness of object in the beam by comparison with the dose measured using a 2D ion chamber array (ICA) and the WE-EPID. Following basic dose response tests, clinical fields including direct single fields (open and wedged) and modulated fields (integrated or control point by control point doses for VMAT) were measured for 6 MV photons with varying of solid water thickness or an anthropomorphic phantom present in beam. The EPID images were corrected for dark signal and pixel sensitivity and converted to dose using a single dose calibration factor. The 2D dose evaluation was conducted using 3%/3 and 2%/2 mm gamma-index criteria. RESULTS: The measured dose-response with the ICA and WE-EPID for all basic dose-response tests agreed with TPS dose calculations to within 1.5%. The maximum difference in dose profiles for the largest measured field size of 25 × 25 cm2 was 2.5%. Gamma evaluation showed at least 94% (3%/3 mm criteria) and 90% (2%/2 mm) agreement in both integrated and control-point doses for all clinical fields acquired by the WE-EPID and ICA when compared with TPS-calculated portal dose images. CONCLUSION: A new approach to transit dose verification has been demonstrated utilizing a water equivalent EPID and a commercial TPS. The accuracy of dose calculations at the EPID plane using a commercial TPS beam model was experimentally confirmed. The model proposed in this study provides an accurate method to directly verify doses delivered during treatment without the additional uncertainties inherent in modelling the complex dose-response of standard EPIDs.

Correlations between contouring similarity metrics and simulated treatment outcome for prostate radiotherapy.

Many similarity metrics exist for inter-observer contouring variation studies, however no correlation between metric choice and prostate cancer radiotherapy dosimetry has been explored. These correlations were investigated in this study. Two separate trials were undertaken, the first a thirty-five patient cohort with three observers, the second a five patient dataset with ten observers. Clinical and planning target volumes (CTV and PTV), rectum, and bladder were independently contoured by all observers in each trial. Structures were contoured on T2-weighted MRI and transferred onto CT following rigid registration for treatment planning in the first trial. Structures were contoured directly on CT in the second trial. STAPLE and majority voting volumes were generated as reference gold standard volumes for each structure for the two trials respectively. VMAT treatment plans (78 Gy to PTV) were simulated for observer and gold standard volumes, and dosimetry assessed using multiple radiobiological metrics. Correlations between contouring similarity metrics and dosimetry were calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. No correlations were observed between contouring similarity metrics and dosimetry for CTV within either trial. Volume similarity correlated most strongly with radiobiological metrics for PTV in both trials, including TCPPoisson (ρ = 0.57, 0.65), TCPLogit (ρ = 0.39, 0.62), and EUD (ρ = 0.43, 0.61) for each respective trial. Rectum and bladder metric correlations displayed no consistency for the two trials. PTV volume similarity was found to significantly correlate with rectum normal tissue complication probability (ρ = 0.33, 0.48). Minimal to no correlations with dosimetry were observed for overlap or boundary contouring metrics. Future inter-observer contouring variation studies for prostate cancer should incorporate volume similarity to provide additional insights into dosimetry during analysis.

Defining and assessing an anisotropic delineation margin for modern radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty in target volume delineation for modern radiotherapy impacts dosimetry and patient outcomes. Delineation uncertainty is generally overlooked in practice as a source of error, potentially since historically, other uncertainties have been the main focus. This work defined and assessed an anisotropic delineation margin in both polar and spherical coordinate systems in order to account for the spatially varying nature of this uncertainty using a whole breast radiotherapy cohort as a proof of concept. METHODS: A cohort of 21 whole breast radiotherapy patient datasets with clinical target volumes delineated by eight independent observers was utilized. Patients were divided into categories based on target volume and laterality. An anisotropic delineation margin for each category was determined by multiplying the average standard deviation in observer contours in each category by a factor of two. Standard deviation was determined in both polar and spherical coordinates at angular increments. This anisotropic approach was compared to a conventional clinical approach, where the delineation margin was applied in the cardinal directions only. The assessment of the delineation margin was undertaken by comparing the encompassment of the observer volumes by the target volume with added margin. The extra, presumed healthy tissue included in the margin and the malignant tissue missed by the margin were determined. RESULTS: The proposed delineation margin is effective at accounting for inter-observer variation, producing >95% coverage of all CTVs for polar, spherical, and Cartesian margins in 82%, 79%, and 92% of cases, respectively. Additionally, <1% malignant tissue was missed for 65%, 70%, and 91% of cases and <37% healthy tissue was included in 95%, 89%, and 97% of cases. A conventional delineation margin approach is most appropriate for small and gold standard target volumes. However, for large target volumes, an anisotropic margin is necessary, producing significantly greater coverage of CTVs, including significantly less presumed healthy tissue and missing significantly less malignant tissue. CONCLUSIONS: All delineation margin methods that account for target volume and laterality proved to be adequate, with appropriate encompassment of interobserver variation and minimal inclusion of extra excess healthy tissue and exclusion of possible malignant tissue. The anisotropic approach was found to be superior to a conventional approach for target volumes >1400 cm3 only with significantly greater encompassment of interobserver variation, less missed malignant tissue and less included healthy tissue. This methodology has been validated for a whole breast radiotherapy cohort as a proof of concept, however could be applied to other anatomical sites.

Interobserver variability in clinical target volume delineation in tangential breast irradiation: a comparison between radiation oncologists and radiation therapists.

AIMS: The delineation of target volumes has been radiation oncologist led. If radiation therapists were to undertake this task, work processes may be more efficient and the skills set of radiation therapy staff broadened. This study was undertaken to quantify interobserver variability of breast target volumes between radiation oncologists and radiation therapists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The planning computed tomography datasets of 30 patients undergoing tangential breast radiotherapy were utilised. Four radiation oncologists and four radiation therapists independently contoured the clinical target volume (CTV) of the breast on planning computed tomography using a written protocol. The mean CTV volumes and the mean distance between centres of volume (COV) were determined for both groups to determine intergroup variation. Each of the radiation oncologists' readings in turn has been used as the gold standard and compared with that of the radiation therapists. The concordance index for each patient's CTV was determined relative to the gold standard for each group. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison between the groups. An intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to measure the agreement between the radiation oncologist and radiation therapist groups. RESULTS: The mean concordance index was 0.81 for radiation oncologists and 0.84 for radiation therapists. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the mean volume was 0.995 (95% confidence interval 0.981-0.998) between radiation oncologist- and radiation therapist-contoured volumes. The intraclass correlation for the mean difference between radiation oncologists' and radiation therapists' COV was 0.999 (95% confidence interval 0.999-1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability between radiation oncologists and radiation therapists was found to be low. Radiation therapists could potentially assume the role of CTV voluming for breast radiotherapy provided a standardised contouring protocol is in place.

The registration of diagnostic versus planning fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in radiotherapy planning for non-small cell lung cancer.

AIMS: Radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increasingly utilises fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) fusion. However, it is unknown whether a PET/CT scan conducted in the treatment position results in more accurate registration to the radiotherapy planning CT (rCT) than a diagnostic PET/CT scan. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of registration of the CT components of the planning PET/CT scan (pCT) and diagnostic PET/CT scan (dCT) scan with the rCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with stage I-III NSCLC underwent an rCT immediately followed by a planning PET/CT scan, both carried out with arms placed above the head and immobilisation in the treatment position. All previously underwent a diagnostic FDG PET/CT, which was carried out with the arms above the head, but without custom immobilisation. dCT and pCT were registered to the rCT using a rigid body mutual information algorithm. Four observers identified 12 anatomical points on each scan and differences in their absolute location were analysed. RESULTS: At the carina, the mean absolute error (MAE) for pCT-rCT compared with dCT-rCT was 4.37 versus 5.73 mm (P=0.028). However, there was no significant difference in the root mean squared error (RMSE) for that point. There were no significant differences in MAE or RMSE for all other anatomical points. The MAE for all points was 4.11 versus 4.15 mm (P=NS) and RMSE was 4.40 versus 4.48 mm for pCT-rCT compared with dCT-rCT (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: There is an average of 4mm of misregistration when registering the CT components of PET/CT scans to the rCT for NSCLC. Using a rigid registration technique, the registration of a diagnostic PET/CT is as good as the registration of a planning PET/CT.

Dosimetric implications of the addition of 18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in CT-based radiotherapy planning for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Summary The aim of this study was to assess the impact of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) CT on radiotherapy planning parameters for patients treated curatively with radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Five patients with stages I-III NSCLC underwent a diagnostic FDG-PET CT (dPET CT), planning FDG-PET CT (pPET CT) and a simulation CT (RTP CT). For each patient, three radiation oncologists delineated a gross tumour volume based on RTP CT alone, and fused with dPET CT and pPET CT. Standard expansions were used to generate PTVs, and a 3D conformal plan was created. Normal tissue doses were compared between plans. Coverage of pPET CT PTV by the plans based on RTP CT and dPET CT was assessed, and tumour control probabilities were calculated. Mean PTV was similar between RTP CT, dPET CT and pPET CT, although there were significant inter-observer differences in four patients. The plans, however, showed no significant differences in doses to lung, oesophagus, heart or spinal cord. The RTP CT plan and dPET CT plan significantly underdosed the pPET PTV in two patients with minimum doses ranging from 12 to 63% of prescribed dose. Coverage by the 95% isodose was suboptimal in these patients, but this did not translate into poorer tumour control probability. The effect of fused FDG-PET varied between observers. The addition of dPET and pPET did not significantly change the radiotherapy planning parameters. Although FDG-PET is of benefit in tumour delineation, its effect on normal tissue complication probability and tumour control probability cannot be predicted.

Dosimetry of small electron fields shaped by lead.

Electron radiotherapy fields are commonly used to treat superficial cancers. Field shaping can be achieved by placing lead on the patient surface to minimise the dose to surrounding areas. However, significant dosimetry changes under high density material edges for electron fields have been reported in the literature. This project evaluated the dosimetry of small dimension electron fields shaped with lead placed on the surface. Comparisons were made between circular lead cutouts placed on the skin and low melting point alloy cutouts placed in an applicator. Depth doses, profiles and output factors were measured using a diode detector in a water phantom. Film was also used to determine surface dose delivered when the lead cutouts were placed on the surface. Minimal differences were observed between the different setups for the depth dose curves, although significant differences were seen in the penumbra and the surface doses. The penumbra is smaller for the lead cutouts placed on the surface, however, significant dose increases at the edge of the field were observed for larger fields and energies; this may result in undesirable clinical effects.