Evaluation of the target dose coverage of stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer using helical tomotherapy: A dynamic phantom study

A study on indirect tumor localization using lung phantom during radiation therapy

Background

Accurate tumor localization is crucial in radiation therapy to ensure precise dose delivery and minimize damage to healthy tissues. This study introduces a novel thoracoabdominal phantom designed for predicting tumor positions in radiotherapy. The phantom incorporates the use of mask region-based convolutional neural networks (Mask R-CNN) ultrasound image tracking algorithm (M-UITA) in conjunction with 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) to establish and refine a tumor motion conversion model.

Methods

Respiratory Motion Simulation System (RMSS) along with 4DCT was used to track the motion trajectories of the tumor phantom in both the superior-inferior (SI) and medial-lateral (ML) directions, with amplitudes ranging from 30-40 mm. Simultaneously, M-UITA was used to track the motion trajectory of the diaphragm phantom in the SI direction to establish a conversion model to derive the motion of the tumor from the motion of the diaphragm. Subsequently, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used for the verification of the tumor phantom conversion position error.

Results

The results indicated that the absolute error between the estimated and actual motion trajectories of the tumor phantom ranged from 0.35 to 1.35 mm in the SI direction and from 0.73 to 2.26 mm in the ML direction.

Conclusions

This study has redesigned the thoracoabdominal phantom and refined the conversion model. In comparison to previous research, errors in both the SI and ML directions have been reduced. In the future, it can be integrated with a respiratory motion compensation system to minimize radiation dose damage to normal tissues.

Sequential monoscopic image-guided motion compensation in tomotherapy stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To manage intra-fractional motions, recent developments in tomotherapy enable a unique capability of adjusting MLC/jaw to track the moving target based on the intra-fractional motions detected by sequential monoscopic imaging. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of motion compensation with a realistic imaging rate for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The obtained results will guide optimizing treatment parameters and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) in tomotherapy using this approach.

METHODS

Ten retrospective prostate cases with actual prostate motion curves previously recorded through the Calypso system were used in this study. Based on the recorded peak-to-peak motion, these cases represented either large (> 5 mm) or median (≤ 5 mm) intra-fractional prostate motions. All the cases were re-planned on tomotherapy using 35 Gy/5 fractions SBRT regimen and three different jaw settings of 1 cm static, 2.5 cm static, and 2.5 cm dynamic jaw. Two motion compensation methods were evaluated: a complete compensation that adjusted the jaw and MLC every 0.1 s (the same rate as the Calypso motion trace), and a realistic compensation that adjusted the jaw and MLC at an average imaging interval of 6 s from sequential monoscopic images. An in-house 4D dose calculation software was then applied to calculate the dosimetric outcomes from the original motion-free plan, the motion-contaminated plan, and the two abovementioned motion-compensated plans. During the process, various imaging rates were also simulated in one case with unusually large motions to quantify the impact of the KV-imaging rate on the effectiveness of motion compensation.

RESULTS

The effectiveness of motion compensation was evaluated based on the PTV coverage and OAR sparing. Without any motion-compensation, the PTV coverage (PTV V100%) of patients with large prostate motions decreased remarkably to 55%-82% when planning with the 1 cm jaw but to a less level of 67-94% with the 2.5 cm jaw. In contrast, motion compensation improved the PTV coverage (>92%) when combined with the 2.5 cm jaw, but less effective, around 75%-94%, with the 1 cm jaw. For OAR sparing, the bladder D1cc, bladder D10cc, and rectum D1cc all increased in the motion-contaminated plans. Motion compensation improved OAR sparing to the equivalent level of the original motion-free plans. For patients with median prostate motion, motion-induced degradation in PTV coverage was only observed when planning with the 1 cm jaw. After motion compensation, the PTV coverage improved to better than 94% for all three jaw settings. Additionally, the effectiveness of motion compensation depends on the imaging rate. Motion compensation with a typical rate of two KV images per gantry rotation effectively reduces motion-induced dosimetric uncertainties. However, a higher imaging rate is recommended when planning with a 1 cm jaw for patients with large motions.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that the performance of sequential monoscopic imaging-guided motion compensation on tomotherapy depends on the amplitude of intra-fractional prostate motion, the plan parameter settings, especially jaw setting, gantry rotation, and the imaging rate for motion compensation. Creating a patient-specific imaging guidance protocol is essential to balance the effectiveness of motion compensation and achievable imaging rate for intra-fractional motion tracking.

Dosimetric accuracy of three dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy of in situ non-small cell lung carcinoma

Background

Study determines differences in calculated dose distributions for non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSC LC) patients. NSC LC cases were investigated, being the most common lung cancer treated by radiotherapy in our clinical practice.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study of 15 NSCLC patient dose distributions originally calculated using standard superposition (SS) and recalculated using collapsed cone (CC ) and Monte Carlo (MC) based algorithm expressed as dose to medium in medium (MCD_m) and dose to water in medium (MCD_w,) was performed so that prescribed dose covers at least 99% of the gross target volume (GTV). Statistical analysis was performed for differences of conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), dose delivered to 2% of the volume (D_2%), mean dose (D_mean) and percentage of volumes covered by prescribed dose (V_70Gy). For organs at risk (OARs), D_mean and percentage of volume receiving 20 Gy and 5Gy (V_20Gy, V_5Gy) were analysed.

Results

Statistically significant difference for GTVs was observed between MCD_w and SS algorithm in mean dose only. For planning target volumes (PTVs), statistically significant differences were observed in prescribed dose coverage for CC, MCD_m and MCD_w. The differences in mean CI value for the CC algorithm and mean HI value for MCD_m and MCD_w were statistically significant. There is a statistically significant difference in the number of MUs for MCD_m and MCD_w compared to SS.

Conclusion

All investigated algorithms succeed in managing the restrictive conditions of the clinical goals. This study shows the drawbacks of the CC algorithm compared to other algorithms used.

Dosimetric Effects of Differences in Multi-Leaf Collimator Speed on SBRT-VMAT for Central Lung Cancer Patients

Purpose: We aimed to investigate the effects of different multi-leaf collimator (MLC) speed constraints in volumetric modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) on the robustness of treatment plans for central lung cancer patients. Method and Materials: Twenty patients with central lung tumor who underwent stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with the VMAT technique at our hospital were included in this retrospective study. The reference plans were created with 3 different MLC speed constraints (Plan A: 0.1 cm/deg., Plan B: 0.3 cm/deg., and Plan C: 0.5 cm/deg.) with a 50-Gy/8Fr, planning target volume (PTV) D_95% prescription. In each of these plans, setup errors from 1 to 5 mm were intentionally added in the direction of the central organ at 1-mm intervals (300 plans [20 cases × 3 MLC speeds × 5 error plans] were created in total). Each plan was then calculated by the same beam conditions as each reference plan. The actual average MLC speed and dose difference between the reference plan and the error-added plan were then calculated and compared among the 3 MLC speeds. Results: In the reference plans, the actual average MLC speeds were 0.25 ± 0.04, 0.34 ± 0.07, and 0.39 ± 0.12 cm/deg. for Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C, respectively (P < .05). For PTV and OARs, many dose indices tended to improve as the MLC speed increased, while no significant differences were observed among the 3 MLC speed constraints. However, in assessments of robustness, no significant differences in dose difference were observed among the 3 MLC speed constraints for most of the indices. Conclusions: When necessary, increasing the MLC speed constraint with a priority on improving the quality of the dose distribution is an acceptable approach for central lung cancer patients.