Literature DB >> 29125035

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for adaptive image guided head and neck radiation therapy.

Christian A Hvid1, Ulrik V Elstrøm2, Kenneth Jensen1, Cai Grau1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adaptive (ART) and image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) can improve target coverage and reduce unnecessary irradiation of organs at risk (OAR). The purpose of this study is to report the results of using mid-course imaging and a novel workflow with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) surveillance of dose to OAR to trigger adaptive replanning in head and neck radiotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Impact of radiation therapist (RTT) managed match protocol and mid-course imaging was assessed in two cohorts of consecutive patients receiving RT to the head and neck region, using computed tomography (CT) and CBCT-based dose verification respectively. In the CBCT cohort, patients at high risk of xerostomia received weekly dose surveillance, while low-risk patients received a mid-course CBCT review. For weekly surveillance, predicted total doses to parotid glands, spinal cord and brainstem were calculated. If predicted mean dose to parotid glands increased by >2 Gy or constraints to brainstem or spinal cord were exceeded, replanning was performed.
RESULTS: None had replanning triggered by mid-course imaging. In the CBCT cohort, weekly surveillance of 40 patients yielded minimal reduction in mean dose to parotid glands of 0.65 Gy (range0.4-1 Gy ) for three patients. Patients were surveilled averagely 4.5 times during treatment. Time consumption per CBCT/week was 22 min (range 17-38). Number of patients needed to see to achieve any dose reduction to parotid glands was 13 or the equivalent of 22 working-hours.
CONCLUSION: The tested dose surveillance algorithm resulted in a minimal dose reduction ( ≤1 Gy) to parotid glands for three of 40 patients. The proposed algorithm and workflow is thus not sustainable. Mid-course dose verification did not provide added benefit and can be safely omitted in the presence of closely monitored daily IGRT. Daily image guidance and match protocol is a safe and efficient method for identifying patients requiring adaptive replanning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29125035     DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1398414

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Oncol        ISSN: 0284-186X            Impact factor:   4.089


  11 in total

1.  CBCT-based synthetic CT generation using generative adversarial networks with disentangled representation.

Authors:  Jiwei Liu; Hui Yan; Hanlin Cheng; Jianfei Liu; Pengjian Sun; Boyi Wang; Ronghu Mao; Chi Du; Shengquan Luo
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-12

2.  Convolutional neural network enhancement of fast-scan low-dose cone-beam CT images for head and neck radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nimu Yuan; Brandon Dyer; Shyam Rao; Quan Chen; Stanley Benedict; Lu Shang; Yan Kang; Jinyi Qi; Yi Rong
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Evaluation of Triggered Adaptive Replanning in Routine Practice.

Authors:  Metin Figen; Didem Çolpan Öksüz; Evrim Duman; Robin Prestwich; Karen Dyker; Kate Cardale; Satiavani Ramasamy; Patrick Murray; Mehmet Şen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  Imaging prior to radiotherapy impacts in-vitro survival.

Authors:  Peter L Kench; Linda Rogers; Ana Esteves; Tina Gorjiara; Elizabeth Claridge Mackonis; Stephen Morrell; David R McKenzie; Natalka Suchowerska
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-11-28

5.  Imaging science and development in modern high-precision radiotherapy.

Authors:  Daniela Thorwarth; Ludvig Muren
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-09

6.  UK adaptive radiotherapy practices for head and neck cancer patients.

Authors:  Victor Shing-Cheung Lee; Giuseppe SchettIno; Andrew Nisbet
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2020-12-11

7.  Analysis of dose using CBCT and synthetic CT during head and neck radiotherapy: A single centre feasibility study.

Authors:  Lisa K Hay; Claire Paterson; Philip McLoone; Eliane Miguel-Chumacero; Ronan Valentine; Suzanne Currie; Derek Grose; Stefano Schipani; Christina Wilson; Ioanna Nixon; Allan James; Aileen Duffton
Journal:  Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-03-23

8.  Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer reduces the requirement for rescans during treatment due to spinal cord dose.

Authors:  Louise Belshaw; Christina E Agnew; Denise M Irvine; Keith P Rooney; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Protocolised way to cope with anatomical changes in head & neck cancer during the course of radiotherapy.

Authors:  Suzanne van Beek; Marcel Jonker; Olga Hamming-Vrieze; Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Arash Navran; Peter Remeijer; Jeroen B van de Kamer
Journal:  Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-16

10.  Head and neck radiotherapy on the MR linac: a multicenter planning challenge amongst MRIdian platform users.

Authors:  Madalyne Chamberlain; Jerome Krayenbuehl; Janita E van Timmeren; Lotte Wilke; Nicolaus Andratschke; Helena Garcia Schüler; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Matthias Guckenberger; Panagiotis Balermpas
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 3.621

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.