Multiple-CT optimization: An adaptive optimization method to account for anatomical changes in intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancers

被引:37
作者
Yang, Zhiyong [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Xiaodong [2 ]
Wang, Xianliang [3 ]
Zhu, Ronald [2 ]
Gunn, Brandon [4 ]
Frank, Steven J. [4 ]
Chang, Yu [1 ]
Li, Qin [1 ]
Yang, Kunyu [1 ]
Wu, Gang [1 ]
Liao, Li [5 ]
Li, Yupeng [2 ]
Chen, Mei [6 ]
Li, Heng [2 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol, Union Hosp, Tongji Med Coll, Canc Ctr, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Phys, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Sichuan Canc Hosp & Inst, Dept Radiat Oncol, Chengdu, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Div Radiat Oncol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[5] Global Oncol One, Houston, TX USA
[6] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Ruijin Hosp, Sch Med, Dept Radiat Oncol, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[7] Johns Hopkins Med, Dept Radiat Oncol & Mol Radiat Sci, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Multiple CT optimization; Adaptive planning; Head and neck cancer; Intensity-modulated proton therapy; WORST-CASE OPTIMIZATION; ROBUST OPTIMIZATION; OROPHARYNGEAL CANCER; TREATMENT UNCERTAINTIES; SENSITIVITY; RANGE; PLANS; RADIOTHERAPY; PROBABILITY; FRACTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.radonc.2019.09.010
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: We aimed to determine whether multiple-CT (MCT) optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could improve plan robustness to anatomical changes and therefore reduce the additional need for adaptive planning. Methods and materials: Ten patients with head and neck cancer who underwent IMPT were included in this retrospective study. Each patient had primary planning CT (PCT), a first adaptive planning CT (ACT1), and a second adaptive planning CT (ACT2). Selective robust IMPT plans were generated using each CT data set (PCT, ACT1, and ACT2). Moreover, a MCT optimized plan was generated using the PCT and ACT1 data sets together. Dose distributions optimized using each of the four plans (PCT, ACT1, ACT2, and MCT plans) were re-calculated on ACT2 data. The doses to the target and to organs at risk were compared between optimization strategies. Results: MCT plans for all patients met all target dose and organs-at-risk criteria for all three CT data sets. Target dose and organs-at-risk dose for PCT and ACT1 plans re-calculated on ACT2 data set were compromised, indicating the need for adaptive planning on ACT2 if PCT or ACT1 plans were used. The D-98% of CTV1 and CTV3 of MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 were both above the coverage criteria. The CTV2 coverage of the MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 was worse than ACT2 plan. The MCT plan re-calculated on ACT2 data set had lower chiasm, esophagus, and larynx doses than did PCT, ACT1, or ACT2 plans recalculated on ACT2 data set. Conclusions: MCT optimization can improve plan robustness toward anatomical change and may reduce the number of plan adaptation for head and neck cancers. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:124 / 132
页数:9
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Is it necessary to plan with safety margins for actively scanned proton therapy?
    Albertini, F.
    Hug, E. B.
    Lomax, A. J.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 56 (14) : 4399 - 4413
  • [2] Sensitivity of intensity modulated proton therapy plans to changes in patient weight
    Albertini, Francesca
    Bolsi, Alessandra
    Lomax, Antony J.
    Rutz, Hans Peter
    Timmerman, Beate
    Goitein, Gudrun
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 86 (02) : 187 - 194
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2010, J ICRU
  • [4] Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer using an integrated CT/linear accelerator system
    Barker, JL
    Garden, AS
    Ang, KK
    O'Daniel, JC
    Wang, H
    Court, LE
    Morrison, WH
    Rosenthal, DI
    Chao, KSC
    Tucker, SL
    Mohan, R
    Dong, L
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2004, 59 (04): : 960 - 970
  • [5] Effects of intra-fraction motion on IMRT dose delivery: statistical analysis and simulation
    Bortfeld, T
    Jokivarsi, K
    Goitein, M
    Kung, J
    Jiang, SB
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2002, 47 (13) : 2203 - 2220
  • [6] Including anatomical variations in robust optimization for head and neck proton therapy can reduce the need of adaptation
    Cubillos-Mesias, Macarena
    Troost, Esther G. C.
    Lohaus, Fabian
    Agolli, Linda
    Rehm, Maximilian
    Richter, Christian
    Stuetzer, Kristin
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2019, 131 : 127 - 134
  • [7] Multifield Optimization Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Head and Neck Tumors: A Translation to Practice
    Frank, Steven J.
    Cox, James D.
    Gillin, Michael
    Mohan, Radhe
    Garden, Adam S.
    Rosenthal, David I.
    Gunn, G. Brandon
    Weber, Randal S.
    Kies, Merrill S.
    Lewin, Jan S.
    Munsell, Mark F.
    Palmer, Matthew B.
    Sahoo, Narayan
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    Liu, Wei
    Zhu, X. Ronald
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2014, 89 (04): : 846 - 853
  • [8] Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy
    Fredriksson, Albin
    Forsgren, Anders
    Hardemark, Bjorn
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (03) : 1672 - 1684
  • [9] A robust algorithm of intensity modulated proton therapy for critical tissue sparing and target coverage
    Inaniwa, Taku
    Kanematsu, Nobuyuki
    Furukawa, Takuji
    Hasegawa, Azusa
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 56 (15) : 4749 - 4770
  • [10] Spot-scanning beam proton therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for ipsilateral head and neck malignancies: A treatment planning comparison
    Kandula, Shravan
    Zhu, Xiaorong
    Garden, Adam S.
    Gillin, Michael
    Rosenthal, David I.
    Ang, Kie-Kian
    Mohan, Radhe
    Amin, Mayankkumar V.
    Garcia, John A.
    Wu, Richard
    Sahoo, Narayah
    Frank, Steven J.
    [J]. MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2013, 38 (04) : 390 - 394