Markus Stoll1,2, Eva Maria Stoiber1, Sarah Grimm1,2,3, Jürgen Debus1,2,4, Rolf Bendl1,2,3, Kristina Giske1,2. 1. Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Faculty of Computer Science, Heilbronn University, Heilbronn, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of head and neck tumors allows a precise conformation of the high-dose region to clinical target volumes (CTVs) while respecting dose limits to organs a risk (OARs). Accurate patient setup reduces translational and rotational deviations between therapy planning and therapy delivery days. However, uncertainties in the shape of the CTV and OARs due to e.g. small pose variations in the highly deformable anatomy of the head and neck region can still compromise the dose conformation. Routinely applied safety margins around the CTV cause higher dose deposition in adjacent healthy tissue and should be kept as small as possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this work we evaluate and compare three approaches for margin generation 1) a clinically used approach with a constant isotropic 3 mm margin, 2) a previously proposed approach adopting a spatial model of the patient and 3) a newly developed approach adopting a biomechanical model of the patient. All approaches are retrospectively evaluated using a large patient cohort of over 500 fraction control CT images with heterogeneous pose changes. Automatic methods for finding landmark positions in the control CT images are combined with a patient specific biomechanical finite element model to evaluate the CTV deformation. RESULTS: The applied methods for deformation modeling show that the pose changes cause deformations in the target region with a mean motion magnitude of 1.80 mm. We found that the CTV size can be reduced by both variable margin approaches by 15.6% and 13.3% respectively, while maintaining the CTV coverage. With approach 3 an increase of target coverage was obtained. CONCLUSION: Variable margins increase target coverage, reduce risk to OARs and improve healthy tissue sparing at the same time.
PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of head and neck tumors allows a precise conformation of the high-dose region to clinical target volumes (CTVs) while respecting dose limits to organs a risk (OARs). Accurate patient setup reduces translational and rotational deviations between therapy planning and therapy delivery days. However, uncertainties in the shape of the CTV and OARs due to e.g. small pose variations in the highly deformable anatomy of the head and neck region can still compromise the dose conformation. Routinely applied safety margins around the CTV cause higher dose deposition in adjacent healthy tissue and should be kept as small as possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this work we evaluate and compare three approaches for margin generation 1) a clinically used approach with a constant isotropic 3 mm margin, 2) a previously proposed approach adopting a spatial model of the patient and 3) a newly developed approach adopting a biomechanical model of the patient. All approaches are retrospectively evaluated using a large patient cohort of over 500 fraction control CT images with heterogeneous pose changes. Automatic methods for finding landmark positions in the control CT images are combined with a patient specific biomechanical finite element model to evaluate the CTV deformation. RESULTS: The applied methods for deformation modeling show that the pose changes cause deformations in the target region with a mean motion magnitude of 1.80 mm. We found that the CTV size can be reduced by both variable margin approaches by 15.6% and 13.3% respectively, while maintaining the CTV coverage. With approach 3 an increase of target coverage was obtained. CONCLUSION: Variable margins increase target coverage, reduce risk to OARs and improve healthy tissue sparing at the same time.
Authors: Yao Yu; Anthony L Michaud; Radhika Sreeraman; Tianxiao Liu; James A Purdy; Allen M Chen Journal: Head Neck Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Kenneth Clark; Bruce Vendt; Kirk Smith; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Paul Koppel; Stephen Moore; Stanley Phillips; David Maffitt; Michael Pringle; Lawrence Tarbox; Fred Prior Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Eric S Paulson; Julie A Bradley; Dian Wang; Ergun E Ahunbay; Christoper Schultz; X Allen Li Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Adam D Yock; Adam S Garden; Laurence E Court; Beth M Beadle; Lifei Zhang; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kristina Giske; Eva M Stoiber; Michael Schwarz; Armin Stoll; Marc W Muenter; Carmen Timke; Falk Roeder; Juergen Debus; Peter E Huber; Christian Thieke; Rolf Bendl Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marije R Vergeer; Patricia A H Doornaert; Derek H F Rietveld; C René Leemans; Ben J Slotman; Johannes A Langendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-26 Impact factor: 7.038