How should we model and evaluate breathing interplay effects in IMPT?

被引:10
|
作者
Pastor-Serrano, Oscar [1 ]
Habraken, Steven [2 ,3 ]
Lathouwers, Danny [1 ]
Hoogeman, Mischa [2 ,3 ]
Schaart, Dennis [1 ,3 ]
Perko, Zoltan [1 ]
机构
[1] Delft Univ Technol, Dept Radiat Sci & Technol, Delft, Netherlands
[2] Univ Med Ctr, Erasmus MC, Canc Inst, Dept Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] HollandPTC, Dept Radiat Oncol, Delft, Netherlands
来源
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY | 2021年 / 66卷 / 23期
关键词
Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT); breathing motion; statistical evaluation; 4DCT robust optimization; ITV robust optimization; breathing interplay effects; RESPIRATORY MOTION; LUNG-CANCER; ORGAN MOTION; 4D OPTIMIZATION; PROTON THERAPY; TUMOR TRACKING; LIVER; UNCERTAINTIES; RADIOTHERAPY; IRRADIATION;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6560/ac383f
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Breathing interplay effects in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) arise from the interaction between target motion and the scanning beam. Assessing the detrimental effect of interplay and the clinical robustness of several mitigation techniques requires statistical evaluation procedures that take into account the variability of breathing during dose delivery. In this study, we present such a statistical method to model intra-fraction respiratory motion based on breathing signals and assess clinical relevant aspects related to the practical evaluation of interplay in IMPT such as how to model irregular breathing, how small breathing changes affect the final dose distribution, and what is the statistical power (number of different scenarios) required for trustworthy quantification of interplay effects. First, two data-driven methodologies to generate artificial patient-specific breathing signals are compared: a simple sinusoidal model, and a precise probabilistic deep learning model generating very realistic samples of patient breathing. Second, we investigate the highly fluctuating relationship between interplay doses and breathing parameters, showing that small changes in breathing period result in large local variations in the dose. Our results indicate that using a limited number of samples to calculate interplay statistics introduces a bigger error than using simple sinusoidal models based on patient parameters or disregarding breathing hysteresis during the evaluation. We illustrate the power of the presented statistical method by analyzing interplay robustness of 4DCT and Internal Target Volume (ITV) treatment plans for a 8 lung cancer patients, showing that, unlike 4DCT plans, even 33 fraction ITV plans systematically fail to fulfill robustness requirements.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [1] Patient specific evaluation of breathing motion induced interplay effects
    Varasteh, Mohammad
    Ali, Asmaa
    Esteve, Sergio
    Jeevanandam, Prakash
    Goepfert, Fabian
    Irvine, Denise M.
    Hounsell, Alan R.
    McGarry, Conor K.
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2023, 105
  • [2] Impact of interplay effects on spot scanning proton therapy with motion mitigation techniques for lung cancer: SFUD versus robustly optimized IMPT plans utilizing a four-dimensional dynamic dose simulation tool
    Yamano, Akihiro
    Inoue, Tatsuya
    Yagihashi, Takayuki
    Yamanaka, Masashi
    Matsumoto, Kazuki
    Shimo, Takahiro
    Shirata, Ryosuke
    Nitta, Kazunori
    Nagata, Hironori
    Shiraishi, Sachika
    Minagawa, Yumiko
    Omura, Motoko
    Tokuuye, Koichi
    Chang, Weishan
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2024, 19 (01)
  • [3] Breathing-motion induced interplay effects for stereotactic body radiotherapy of liver tumours using flattening-filter free volumetric modulated arc therapy
    Edvardsson, A.
    Scherman, J.
    Nilsson, M. P.
    Wennberg, B.
    Nordstrom, F.
    Ceberg, C.
    Ceberg, S.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2019, 64 (02):
  • [4] Dynamic computed tomography appearance of tumor response after stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: How should we evaluate treatment effects?
    Kimura, Tomoki
    Takahashi, Shigeo
    Kenjo, Masahiro
    Nishibuchi, Ikuno
    Takahashi, Ippei
    Takeuchi, Yuki
    Doi, Yoshiko
    Kaneyasu, Yuko
    Murakami, Yuji
    Honda, Yoji
    Aikata, Hiroshi
    Chayama, Kazuaki
    Nagata, Yasushi
    HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH, 2013, 43 (07) : 717 - 727
  • [5] Online-adaptive versus robust IMPT for prostate cancer: How much can we gain?
    Jagt, Thyrza Z.
    Breedveld, Sebastiaan
    van Haveren, Rens
    Heijmen, Ben J. M.
    Hoogeman, Mischa S.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2020, 151 : 228 - 233
  • [6] The microbiome and inborn errors of metabolism: Why we should look carefully at their interplay?
    Colonetti, Karina
    Roesch, Luiz Fernando
    Doederlein Schwartz, Ida Vanessa
    GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 2018, 41 (03) : 515 - 532
  • [7] How should we monitor patients after SVR?
    Jacobson, I.
    JOURNAL OF VIRAL HEPATITIS, 2014, 21 : 15 - 17
  • [8] Respiratory health effects of cannabis-How should we respond to liberalization of cannabis laws?
    Hancox, Robert J.
    RESPIROLOGY, 2024, 29 (04) : 277 - 279
  • [9] Performance variations among clinically available deformable image registration tools in adaptive radiotherapy - how should we evaluate and interpret the result?
    Nie, Ke
    Pouliot, Jean
    Smith, Eric
    Chuang, Cynthia
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 17 (02): : 328 - 340
  • [10] Controversies in Treatment Deintensification of Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharyngeal Carcinomas: Should We, How Should We, and for Whom?
    Quon, Harry
    Forastiere, Arlene A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 31 (05) : 520 - 522