Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2022
Bone versus soft-tissue setup in proton therapy for patients with oesophageal cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shamshad Muhammad, Møller Ditte Sloth, Mortensen Hanna Rahbek, Ehmsen Mai Lykkegaard, Jensen Maria Fuglsang, Hoffmann Lone
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of patient positioning based on either bone or soft-tissue matching for PT in oesophageal cancer and its impact on plan adaptation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two retrospective patient cohorts treated with radiotherapy were included in the study. Cohort A consisted of 26 consecutive patients with a planning 4DCT scan (CT1) and a surveillance 4DCT scan (CT2) at fraction ten. Cohort B consisted of 17 patients selected based on large anatomical changes identified during treatment resulting in a rescan (CT2). Mean dose to the iCTV (sum of the CTVs in all respiratory phases) was 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions or 41.4 Gy (RBE) in 23 fractions. A nominal pencil beam scanning plan was created using two posterior beams and robust optimization (5 mm setup, 3.5% range). For each patient, two rigid registrations were made between average (avg) CT1 and CT2: a match on the vertebral column (bone match) and a match on the iCTV (soft-tissue match). Robustness towards setup (5 mm) and range (3.5%) errors was evaluated at CT2. Robustness towards respiration was evaluated by recalculation of the plan on all phases of the CT2 scan. Dose coverage <96% would trigger adaptation. The statistical significance (p-value <0.05) between dose coverage for the two registration methods was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
RESULTS: All plans fulfilled V95%iCTV>99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTV>97% for all respiratory phases and robustness scenarios at CT1. In two (8%) and three (18%) patients, V95%iCTV<96% on CT2 for Cohort A and B, respectively when bone match was used. For soft-tissue match, V95%iCTV >96% for all patients. V95%iCTV was significantly higher (p-value = 0.0001) for soft-tissue match than bone match.
CONCLUSION: Anatomical changes during the treatment course led to target dose deterioration and a need for plan adaptation when using a bone match.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two retrospective patient cohorts treated with radiotherapy were included in the study. Cohort A consisted of 26 consecutive patients with a planning 4DCT scan (CT1) and a surveillance 4DCT scan (CT2) at fraction ten. Cohort B consisted of 17 patients selected based on large anatomical changes identified during treatment resulting in a rescan (CT2). Mean dose to the iCTV (sum of the CTVs in all respiratory phases) was 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions or 41.4 Gy (RBE) in 23 fractions. A nominal pencil beam scanning plan was created using two posterior beams and robust optimization (5 mm setup, 3.5% range). For each patient, two rigid registrations were made between average (avg) CT1 and CT2: a match on the vertebral column (bone match) and a match on the iCTV (soft-tissue match). Robustness towards setup (5 mm) and range (3.5%) errors was evaluated at CT2. Robustness towards respiration was evaluated by recalculation of the plan on all phases of the CT2 scan. Dose coverage <96% would trigger adaptation. The statistical significance (p-value <0.05) between dose coverage for the two registration methods was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
RESULTS: All plans fulfilled V95%iCTV>99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTV>97% for all respiratory phases and robustness scenarios at CT1. In two (8%) and three (18%) patients, V95%iCTV<96% on CT2 for Cohort A and B, respectively when bone match was used. For soft-tissue match, V95%iCTV >96% for all patients. V95%iCTV was significantly higher (p-value = 0.0001) for soft-tissue match than bone match.
CONCLUSION: Anatomical changes during the treatment course led to target dose deterioration and a need for plan adaptation when using a bone match.