Literature DB >> 29219119

Density overwrites of internal tumor volumes in intensity modulated proton therapy plans for mobile lung tumors.

Pablo Botas1, Clemens Grassberger, Gregory Sharp, Harald Paganetti.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate internal tumor volume density overwrite strategies to minimize intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan degradation of mobile lung tumors. Four planning paradigms were compared for nine lung cancer patients. Internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) and internal clinical target volume (ICTV) structures were defined encompassing their respective volumes in every 4DCT phase. The paradigms use different planning CT (pCT) created from the average intensity projection (AIP) of the 4DCT, overwriting the density within the IGTV to account for movement. The density overwrites were: (a) constant filling with 100 HU (C100) or (b) 50 HU (C50), (c) maximum intensity projection (MIP) across phases, and (d) water equivalent path length (WEPL) consideration from beam's-eye-view. Plans were created optimizing dose-influence matrices calculated with fast GPU Monte Carlo (MC) simulations in each pCT. Plans were evaluated with MC on the 4DCTs using a model of the beam delivery time structure. Dose accumulation was performed using deformable image registration. Interplay effect was addressed applying 10 times rescanning. Significantly less DVH metrics degradation occurred when using MIP and WEPL approaches. Target coverage ([Formula: see text] Gy(RBE)) was fulfilled in most cases with MIP and WEPL ([Formula: see text] Gy (RBE)), keeping dose heterogeneity low ([Formula: see text] Gy(RBE)). The mean lung dose was kept lowest by the WEPL strategy, as well as the maximum dose to organs at risk (OARs). The impact on dose levels in the heart, spinal cord and esophagus were patient specific. Overall, the WEPL strategy gives the best performance and should be preferred when using a 3D static geometry for lung cancer IMPT treatment planning. Newly available fast MC methods make it possible to handle long simulations based on 4D data sets to perform studies with high accuracy and efficiency, even prior to individual treatment planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29219119      PMCID: PMC5850956          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aaa035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  36 in total

1.  Temporo-spatial IMRT optimization: concepts, implementation and initial results.

Authors:  Alexei Trofimov; Eike Rietzel; Hsiao-Ming Lu; Benjamin Martin; Steve Jiang; George T Y Chen; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-05-25       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Thomas Bortfeld; Benjamin C Martin; Martin Soukup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Deformable motion reconstruction for scanned proton beam therapy using on-line x-ray imaging.

Authors:  Ye Zhang; A Knopf; C Tanner; D Boye; A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Evaluation of registration methods on thoracic CT: the EMPIRE10 challenge.

Authors:  Keelin Murphy; Bram van Ginneken; Joseph M Reinhardt; Sven Kabus; Kai Ding; Xiang Deng; Kunlin Cao; Kaifang Du; Gary E Christensen; Vincent Garcia; Tom Vercauteren; Nicholas Ayache; Olivier Commowick; Grégoire Malandain; Ben Glocker; Nikos Paragios; Nassir Navab; Vladlena Gorbunova; Jon Sporring; Marleen de Bruijne; Xiao Han; Mattias P Heinrich; Julia A Schnabel; Mark Jenkinson; Cristian Lorenz; Marc Modat; Jamie R McClelland; Sébastien Ourselin; Sascha E A Muenzing; Max A Viergever; Dante De Nigris; D Louis Collins; Tal Arbel; Marta Peroni; Rui Li; Gregory C Sharp; Alexander Schmidt-Richberg; Jan Ehrhardt; René Werner; Dirk Smeets; Dirk Loeckx; Gang Song; Nicholas Tustison; Brian Avants; James C Gee; Marius Staring; Stefan Klein; Berend C Stoel; Martin Urschler; Manuel Werlberger; Jef Vandemeulebroucke; Simon Rit; David Sarrut; Josien P W Pluim
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Still equivalent for dose calculation in the Monte Carlo era? A comparison of free breathing and average intensity projection CT datasets for lung SBRT using three generations of dose calculation algorithms.

Authors:  Kristina Zvolanek; Rongtao Ma; Christina Zhou; Xiaoying Liang; Shuo Wang; Vivek Verma; Xiaofeng Zhu; Qinghui Zhang; Joseph Driewer; Chi Lin; Weining Zhen; Andrew Wahl; Su-Min Zhou; Dandan Zheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Effect of inhomogeneity in a patient's body on the accuracy of the pencil beam algorithm in comparison to Monte Carlo.

Authors:  T Yamashita; T Akagi; T Aso; A Kimura; T Sasaki
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Implementation of a target volume design function for intrafractional range variation in a particle beam treatment planning system.

Authors:  S Mori; T Inaniwa; K Miki; T Shirai; K Noda
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Site-specific range uncertainties caused by dose calculation algorithms for proton therapy.

Authors:  J Schuemann; S Dowdell; C Grassberger; C H Min; H Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Motion interplay as a function of patient parameters and spot size in spot scanning proton therapy for lung cancer.

Authors:  Clemens Grassberger; Stephen Dowdell; Antony Lomax; Greg Sharp; James Shackleford; Noah Choi; Henning Willers; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 10.  Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Considerations when treating lung cancer with passive scatter or active scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  Sara St James; Clemens Grassberger; Hsiao-Ming Lu
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04

2.  Advanced proton beam dosimetry part II: Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam-based planning for lung cancer.

Authors:  Dominic Maes; Jatinder Saini; Jing Zeng; Ramesh Rengan; Tony Wong; Stephen R Bowen
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04

3.  Assessment of a diaphragm override strategy for robustly optimized proton therapy planning for esophageal cancer patients.

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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.