Intensity modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of thyroid cancer

CT image-guided intensity-modulated therapy for paraspinal tumors using stereotactic immobilization

PURPOSE

To design and implement a noninvasive stereotactic immobilization technique with daily CT image-guided positioning to treat patients with paraspinal lesions accurately and to quantify the systematic and random patient setup errors occurring with this method.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A stereotactic body frame (SBF) was developed for "rigid" immobilization of paraspinal patients. The inherent accuracy of this system for stereotactic CT-guided treatment was evaluated with phantom studies. Seven patients with thoracic and lumbar spine lesions were immobilized with the SBF and positioned for 33 treatment fractions using daily CT scans. For all 7 patients, the daily setup errors, as assessed from the daily CT scans, were corrected at each treatment fraction. A retrospective analysis was also performed to assess what the impact on patient treatment would have been without the CT-based corrections (i.e., if patient setup had been performed only with the SBF).

RESULTS

The average magnitude of systematic and random errors from uncorrected patient setups using the SBF was approximately 2 mm and 1.5 mm (1 SD), respectively. For fixed phantom targets, the system accuracy for the SBF localization and treatment was shown to be within 1 mm (1 SD) in any direction. Dose-volume histograms incorporating these uncertainties for an intensity-modulated radiotherapy plan for lumbar spine lesions were generated, and the effects on the dose-volume histograms were studied.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated a very accurate and precise method of patient immobilization and treatment delivery based on a noninvasive SBF and daily image guidance for paraspinal lesions. The SBF provides excellent immobilization for paraspinal targets, with setup accuracy better than 2 mm (1 SD). However, for highly conformal paraspinal treatments, uncorrected systematic and random errors of 2 mm in magnitude can result in a significantly greater (>100%) dose to the spinal cord than planned, even though the planned target coverage may not change substantially. With daily CT guidance using the SBF, we showed that the maximal spinal cord dose is ensured to be within 10-15% of the planned value.

Evaluation of concave dose distributions created using an inverse planning system

PURPOSE

To evaluate and develop optimum inverse treatment planning strategies for the treatment of concave targets adjacent to normal tissue structures.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Optimized dose distributions were designed using an idealized geometry consisting of a cylindrical phantom with a concave kidney-shaped target (PTV) and cylindrical normal tissues (NT) placed 5-13 mm from the target. Targets with radii of curvature from 1 to 2.75 cm were paired with normal tissues with radii between 0.5 and 2.25 cm. The target was constrained to a prescription dose of 100% and minimum and maximum doses of 95% and 105% with relative penalties of 25. Maximum dose constraint parameters for the NT varied from 10% to 70% with penalties from 10 to 1000. Plans were evaluated using the PTV uniformity index (PTV D(max)/PTV D(95)) and maximum normal tissue doses (NT D(max)/PTV D(95)).

RESULTS

In nearly all situations, the achievable PTV uniformity index and the maximum NT dose exceeded the corresponding constraints. This was particularly true for small PTV-NT separations (5-8 mm) or strict NT dose constraints (10%-30%), where the achievable doses differed from the requested by 30% or more. The same constraint parameters applied to different PTV-NT separations yielded different dose distributions. For most geometries, a range of constraints could be identified that would lead to acceptable plans. The optimization results were fairly independent of beam energy and radius of curvature, but improved as the number of beams increased, particularly for small PTV-NT separations or strict dose constraints.

CONCLUSION

Optimized dose distributions are strongly affected by both the constraint parameters and target-normal tissue geometry. Standard site-specific constraint templates can serve as a starting point for optimization, but the final constraints must be determined iteratively for individual patients. A strategy whereby NT constraints and penalties are modified until the highest acceptable PTV uniformity index is achieved is discussed. This strategy can be used, in simple patient geometries, to ensure the lowest possible normal tissue dose. Strategies for setting the optimum dose constraints and penalties may vary for different optimization algorithms and objective functions. Increasing the number of beams can significantly improve normal tissue dose and target uniformity in situations where the PTV-NT separation is small or the normal tissue dose limits are severe. Setting unrealistically severe constraints in such situations often results in dose distributions that are inferior to plans achieved with more lenient constraints.

Smoothing intensity-modulated beam profiles to improve the efficiency of delivery

Intensity-modulated beam profiles are generated by an inverse planning or optimization algorithm, a process that, being computationally complex and intensive, is inherently susceptible to noise and numerical artifacts. These artifacts make delivery of the beams more difficult, oftentimes for little, if any, observable improvement in the dose distributions. In this work we examine two approaches for smoothing the beam profiles. The first approach is to smooth the beam profiles subsequent to each iteration in the optimization process (method A). The second approach is to include a term within the objective function that specifies the smoothness of the profiles as an optimization criterion (method B). The two methods were applied to a phantom study as well as three clinical sites: paraspinal, nasopharynx, and prostate. For the paraspinal and nasopharynx cases, which have critical organs with low tolerance doses in close proximity, method B produced sharper dose gradients, better target dose homogeneity, and more critical organ sparing. In the less demanding prostate case, the two methods give similar results. In addition, method B is more efficient during optimization, requiring fewer iterations, but less efficient during DMLC delivery, requiring a longer beam-on time.