Planning With Patient-Specific Rectal Sub-Region Constraints Decreases Probability of Toxicity in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy.

Background: A rectal sub-region (SRR) has been previously identified by voxel-wise analysis in the inferior-anterior part of the rectum as highly predictive of rectal bleeding (RB) in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Translating the SRR to patient-specific radiotherapy planning is challenging as new constraints have to be defined. A recent geometry-based model proposed to optimize the planning by determining the achievable mean doses (AMDs) to the organs at risk (OARs), taking into account the overlap between the planning target volume (PTV) and OAR. The aim of this study was to quantify the SRR dose sparing by using the AMD model in the planning, while preserving the dose to the prostate. Material and Methods: Three-dimensional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning dose distributions for 60 patients were computed following four different strategies, delivering 78 Gy to the prostate, while meeting the genitourinary group dose constraints to the OAR: (i) a standard plan corresponding to the standard practice for rectum sparing (STDpl), (ii) a plan adding constraints to SRR (SRRpl), (iii) a plan using the AMD model applied to the rectum only (AMD_RECTpl), and (iv) a final plan using the AMD model applied to both the rectum and the SRR (AMD_RECT_SRRpl). After PTV dose normalization, plans were compared with regard to dose distributions, quality, and estimated risk of RB using a normal tissue complication probability model. Results: AMD_RECT_SRRpl showed the largest SRR dose sparing, with significant mean dose reductions of 7.7, 3, and 2.3 Gy, with respect to the STDpl, SRRpl, and AMD_RECTpl, respectively. AMD_RECT_SRRpl also decreased the mean rectal dose by 3.6 Gy relative to STDpl and by 3.3 Gy relative to SRRpl. The absolute risk of grade ≥1 RB decreased from 22.8% using STDpl planning to 17.6% using AMD_RECT_SRRpl considering SRR volume. AMD_RECT_SRRpl plans, however, showed slightly less dose homogeneity and significant increase of the number of monitor units, compared to the three other strategies. Conclusion: Compared to a standard prostate planning, applying dose constraints to a patient-specific SRR by using the achievable mean dose model decreased the mean dose by 7.7 Gy to the SRR and may decrease the relative risk of RB by 22%.

Comparison of CBCT-based dose calculation methods in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: from Hounsfield unit to density calibration curve to deep learning.

PURPOSE: Anatomical variations occur during head and neck (H&N) radiotherapy treatment. kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images can be used for daily dose monitoring to assess dose variations owing to anatomic changes. Deep learning methods (DLMs) have recently been proposed to generate pseudo-CT (pCT) from CBCT to perform dose calculation. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of a DLM and to compare this method with three existing methods of dose calculation from CBCT in H&N cancer radiotherapy. METHODS: Forty-four patients received VMAT for H&N cancer (70-63-56 Gy). For each patient, reference CT (Bigbore, Philips) and CBCT images (XVI, Elekta) were acquired. The DLM was based on a generative adversarial network. The three compared methods were: (a) a method using a density to Hounsfield Unit (HU) relation from phantom CBCT image (HU-D curve method), (b) a water-air-bone density assignment method (DAM), and iii) a method using deformable image registration (DIR). The imaging endpoints were the mean absolute error (MAE) and mean error (ME) of HU from pCT and reference CT (CTref ). The dosimetric endpoints were dose discrepancies and 3D gamma analyses (local, 2%/2 mm, 30% dose threshold). Dose discrepancies were defined as the mean absolute differences between DVHs calculated from the CTref and pCT of each method. RESULTS: In the entire body, the MAEs and MEs of the DLM, HU-D curve method, DAM, and DIR method were 82.4 and 17.1 HU, 266.6 and 208.9 HU, 113.2 and 14.2 HU, and 95.5 and -36.6 HU, respectively. The MAE obtained using the DLM differed significantly from those of other methods (Wilcoxon, P ≤ 0.05). The DLM dose discrepancies were 7 ± 8 cGy (maximum = 44 cGy) for the ipsilateral parotid gland Dmean and 5 ± 6 cGy (max = 26 cGy) for the contralateral parotid gland mean dose (Dmean ). For the parotid gland Dmean , no significant dose difference was observed between the DLM and other methods. The mean 3D gamma pass rate ± standard deviation was 98.1 ± 1.2%, 91.0 ± 5.3%, 97.9 ± 1.6%, and 98.8 ± 0.7% for the DLM, HU-D method, DAM, and DIR method, respectively. The gamma pass rates and mean gamma results of the HU-D curve method, DAM, and DIR method differed significantly from those of the DLM. CONCLUSIONS: For H&N radiotherapy, DIR method and DLM appears as the most appealing CBCT-based dose calculation methods among the four methods in terms of dose accuracy as well as calculation time. Using the DIR method or DLM with CBCT images enables dose monitoring in the parotid glands during the treatment course and may be used to trigger replanning.

In vivo liver tissue mechanical properties by Transient Elastography: comparison with Dynamic Mechanical Analysis.

Understanding the mechanical properties of human liver is one of the most critical aspects of its numerical modeling for medical applications or impact biomechanics. Generally, model constitutive laws come from in vitro data. However, the elastic properties of liver may change significantly after death and with time. Furthermore, in vitro liver elastic properties reported in the literature have often not been compared quantitatively with in vivo liver mechanical properties on the same organ. In this study, both steps are investigated on porcine liver. The elastic property of the porcine liver, given by the shear modulus G, was measured by both Transient Elastography (TE) and Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA). Shear modulus measurements were realized on in vivo and in vitro liver to compare the TE and DMA methods and to study the influence of testing conditions on the liver viscoelastic properties. In vitro results show that elastic properties obtained by TE and DMA are in agreement. Liver tissue in the frequency range from 0.1 to 4 Hz can be modeled by a two-mode relaxation model. Furthermore, results show that the liver is homogeneous, isotropic and more elastic than viscous. Finally, it is shown in this study that viscoelastic properties obtained by TE and DMA change significantly with post mortem time and with the boundary conditions.

Calibration of helical tomotherapy machine using EPR/alanine dosimetry.

PURPOSE: Current codes of practice for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams in conventional radiotherapy recommend using a 10 x 10 cm2 square field, with the detector at a reference depth of 10 cm in water and 100 cm source to surface distance (SSD) (AAPM TG-51) or 100 cm source-to-axis distance (SAD) (IAEA TRS-398). However, the maximum field size of a helical tomotherapy (HT) machine is 40 x 5 cm2 defined at 85 cm SAD. These nonstandard conditions prevent a direct implementation of these protocols. The purpose of this study is twofold: To check the absorbed dose in water and dose rate calibration of a tomotherapy unit as well as the accuracy of the tomotherapy treatment planning system (TPS) calculations for a specific test case. METHOD: Both topics are based on the use of electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) using alanine as transfer dosimeter between the Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel (LNHB) 60Co-gamma-ray reference beam and the Institut Curie's HT beam. Irradiations performed in the LNHB reference 60Co-gamma-ray beam allowed setting up the calibration method, which was then implemented and tested at the LNHB 6 MV linac x-ray beam, resulting in a deviation of 1.6% (at a 1% standard uncertainty) relative to the reference value determined with the standard IAEA TRS-398 protocol. RESULTS: HT beam dose rate estimation shows a difference of 2% with the value stated by the manufacturer at a 2% standard uncertainty. A 4% deviation between measured dose and the calculation from the tomotherapy TPS was found. The latter was originated by an inadequate representation of the phantom CT-scan values and, consequently, mass densities within the phantom. This difference has been explained by the mass density values given by the CT-scan and used by the TPS which were not the true ones. Once corrected using Monte Carlo N-Particle simulations to validate the accuracy of this process, the difference between corrected TPS calculations and alanine measured dose values was then found to be around 2% (with 2% standard uncertainty on TPS doses and 1.5% standard uncertainty on EPR measurements). CONCLUSION: Beam dose rate estimation results were found to be in good agreement with the reference value given by the manufacturer at 2% standard uncertainty. Moreover, the dose determination method was set up with a deviation around 2% (at a 2% standard uncertainty).