Jen Yu1, Xiaodong Zhang2, Li Liao3, Heng Li2, Ronald Zhu2, Peter C Park4, Narayan Sahoo2, Michael Gillin2, Yupeng Li5, Joe Y Chang6, Ritsuko Komaki6, Steven H Lin6. 1. Proton Therapy Center and Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 and Maryland Proton Treatment Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore Maryland 21201. 2. Proton Therapy Center and Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030. 3. Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004. 4. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030. 5. Applied Research, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California 94304. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop methods for evaluation and mitigation of dosimetric impact due to respiratory and diaphragmatic motion during free breathing in treatment of distal esophageal cancers using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS: This was a retrospective study on 11 patients with distal esophageal cancer. For each patient, four-dimensional computed tomography (4D CT) data were acquired, and a nominal dose was calculated on the average phase of the 4D CT. The changes of water equivalent thickness (ΔWET) to cover the treatment volume from the peak of inspiration to the valley of expiration were calculated for a full range of beam angle rotation. Two IMPT plans were calculated: one at beam angles corresponding to small ΔWET and one at beam angles corresponding to large ΔWET. Four patients were selected for the calculation of 4D-robustness-optimized IMPT plans due to large motion-induced dose errors generated in conventional IMPT. To quantitatively evaluate motion-induced dose deviation, the authors calculated the lowest dose received by 95% (D95) of the internal clinical target volume for the nominal dose, the D95 calculated on the maximum inhale and exhale phases of 4D CT DCT0 andDCT50 , the 4D composite dose, and the 4D dynamic dose for a single fraction. RESULTS: The dose deviation increased with the average ΔWET of the implemented beams, ΔWETave. When ΔWETave was less than 5 mm, the dose error was less than 1 cobalt gray equivalent based on DCT0 and DCT50 . The dose deviation determined on the basis of DCT0 and DCT50 was proportionally larger than that determined on the basis of the 4D composite dose. The 4D-robustness-optimized IMPT plans notably reduced the overall dose deviation of multiple fractions and the dose deviation caused by the interplay effect in a single fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In IMPT for distal esophageal cancer, ΔWET analysis can be used to select the beam angles that are least affected by respiratory and diaphragmatic motion. To further reduce dose deviation, the 4D-robustness optimization can be implemented for IMPT planning. Calculation of DCT0 and DCT50 is a conservative method to estimate the motion-induced dose errors.
PURPOSE: To develop methods for evaluation and mitigation of dosimetric impact due to respiratory and diaphragmatic motion during free breathing in treatment of distal esophageal cancers using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). METHODS: This was a retrospective study on 11 patients with distal esophageal cancer. For each patient, four-dimensional computed tomography (4D CT) data were acquired, and a nominal dose was calculated on the average phase of the 4D CT. The changes of water equivalent thickness (ΔWET) to cover the treatment volume from the peak of inspiration to the valley of expiration were calculated for a full range of beam angle rotation. Two IMPT plans were calculated: one at beam angles corresponding to small ΔWET and one at beam angles corresponding to large ΔWET. Four patients were selected for the calculation of 4D-robustness-optimized IMPT plans due to large motion-induced dose errors generated in conventional IMPT. To quantitatively evaluate motion-induced dose deviation, the authors calculated the lowest dose received by 95% (D95) of the internal clinical target volume for the nominal dose, the D95 calculated on the maximum inhale and exhale phases of 4D CT DCT0 andDCT50 , the 4D composite dose, and the 4D dynamic dose for a single fraction. RESULTS: The dose deviation increased with the average ΔWET of the implemented beams, ΔWETave. When ΔWETave was less than 5 mm, the dose error was less than 1 cobalt gray equivalent based on DCT0 and DCT50 . The dose deviation determined on the basis of DCT0 and DCT50 was proportionally larger than that determined on the basis of the 4D composite dose. The 4D-robustness-optimized IMPT plans notably reduced the overall dose deviation of multiple fractions and the dose deviation caused by the interplay effect in a single fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In IMPT for distal esophageal cancer, ΔWET analysis can be used to select the beam angles that are least affected by respiratory and diaphragmatic motion. To further reduce dose deviation, the 4D-robustness optimization can be implemented for IMPT planning. Calculation of DCT0 and DCT50 is a conservative method to estimate the motion-induced dose errors.
Authors: Tejan P Diwanji; Pranshu Mohindra; Melissa Vyfhuis; James W Snider; Chaitanya Kalavagunta; Sina Mossahebi; Jen Yu; Steven Feigenberg; Shahed N Badiyan Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2017-04
Authors: Jie Shan; Yunze Yang; Steven E Schild; Thomas B Daniels; William W Wong; Mirek Fatyga; Martin Bues; Terence T Sio; Wei Liu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andrew J Boria; Jinsoo Uh; Fakhriddin Pirlepesov; James C Stuckey; Marian Axente; Melissa A Gargone; Chia-Ho Hua Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2018-11-30
Authors: Sabine Visser; Hendrike Neh; Cássia Oraboni Ribeiro; Erik W Korevaar; Arturs Meijers; Björn Poppe; Nanna M Sijtsema; Stefan Both; Johannes A Langendijk; Christina T Muijs; Antje C Knopf Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 4.506