Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2019
Multiple-CT optimization: An adaptive optimization method to account for anatomical changes in intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancers.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Yang Zhiyong, Zhang Xiaodong, Wang Xianliang, Zhu X Ronald, Gunn Brandon, Frank Steven J, Chang Yu, Li Qin, Yang Kunyu, Wu Gang, Liao Li, Li Yupeng, Chen Mei, Li Heng
Аннотация
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 D98% 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 re-calculated 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.
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 D98% 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 re-calculated 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.