Literature DB >> 31564553

Multiple-CT optimization: An adaptive optimization method to account for anatomical changes in intensity-modulated proton therapy for head and neck cancers.

Zhiyong Yang1, Xiaodong Zhang2, Xianliang Wang3, X Ronald Zhu2, Brandon Gunn4, Steven J Frank4, Yu Chang5, Qin Li5, Kunyu Yang5, Gang Wu5, Li Liao6, Yupeng Li2, Mei Chen7, Heng Li8.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptive planning; Head and neck cancer; Intensity-modulated proton therapy; Multiple CT optimization

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31564553     DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.09.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiother Oncol        ISSN: 0167-8140            Impact factor:   6.280


  10 in total

Review 1.  Adaptive proton therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Pablo Botas; Gregory C Sharp; Brian Winey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Proton Therapy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Early Clinical Experience and Current Challenges.

Authors:  Sandra Nuyts; Heleen Bollen; Sweet Ping Ng; June Corry; Avraham Eisbruch; William M Mendenhall; Robert Smee; Primoz Strojan; Wai Tong Ng; Alfio Ferlito
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  Inter-fraction robustness of intensity-modulated proton therapy in the post-operative treatment of oropharyngeal and oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas.

Authors:  Christina Hague; Marianne Aznar; Lei Dong; Alireza Fotouhi-Ghiam; Lip Wai Lee; Taoran Li; Alexander Lin; Matthew Lowe; John N Lukens; Andrew McPartlin; Shannon O'Reilly; Nick Slevin; Samuel Swisher-Mcclure; David Thomson; Marcel Van Herk; Catharine West; Wei Zou; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Proton Therapy for HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancers of the Head and Neck: a De-Intensification Strategy.

Authors:  Nicolette Taku; Li Wang; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal; G Brandon Gunn; William H Morrison; C David Fuller; Jack Phan; Jay P Reddy; Amy C Moreno; Michael T Spiotto; Gregory Chronowski; Shalin J Shah; Lauren L Mayo; Neil D Gross; Renata Ferrarotto; X Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2021-06-04

5.  Intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer reduces rates of late xerostomia.

Authors:  Jianzhong Cao; Xiaodong Zhang; Bo Jiang; Jiayun Chen; Xiaochun Wang; Li Wang; Narayan Sahoo; X Ronald Zhu; Rong Ye; Pierre Blanchard; Adam S Garden; C David Fuller; G Brandon Gunn; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 6.901

6.  Anatomic changes in head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy: Comparison between robust optimization and online adaptation.

Authors:  Arthur Lalonde; Mislav Bobić; Brian Winey; Joost Verburg; Gregory C Sharp; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 6.901

7.  Evaluation of OAR dose sparing and plan robustness of beam-specific PTV in lung cancer IMRT treatment.

Authors:  Yu Chang; Feng Xiao; Hong Quan; Zhiyong Yang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Evaluating Proton Dose and Associated Range Uncertainty Using Daily Cone-Beam CT.

Authors:  Heng Li; William T Hrinivich; Hao Chen; Khadija Sheikh; Meng Wei Ho; Rachel Ger; Dezhi Liu; Russell Kenneth Hales; Khinh Ranh Voong; Aditya Halthore; Curtiland Deville
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 5.738

9.  Analysis of the Rate of Re-planning in Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Riley H Harper; Noelle C Deiter; Jaden D Evans; Anita Mahajan; Jon J Kruse; Daniel W Mundy
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2022-06-28

Review 10.  Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.174

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.