Literature DB >> 33503592

Comparison of weekly and daily online adaptation for head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Mislav Bobić1,2,3, Arthur Lalonde1,3, Gregory C Sharp1,3, Clemens Grassberger1,3, Joost M Verburg1,3, Brian A Winey1,3, Antony J Lomax2,4, Harald Paganetti1,3.   

Abstract

The high conformality of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) dose distributions causes treatment plans to be sensitive to geometrical changes during the course of a fractionated treatment. This can be addressed using adaptive proton therapy (APT). One important question in APT is the frequency of adaptations performed during a fractionated treatment, which is related to the question whether plan adaptation has to be done online or offline. The purpose of this work is to investigate the impact of weekly and daily online IMPT plan adaptation on the treatment quality for head and neck patients. A cohort of ten head and neck patients with daily acquired cone-beam CT (CBCT) images was evaluated retrospectively. Dose tracking of the IMPT treatment was performed for three scenarios: base plan with no adaptation (BP), weekly online adaptation (OAW), and daily online adaptation (OAD). Both adaptation schemes used an in-house developed online APT workflow, performing Monte Carlo dose calculations on scatter-corrected CBCTs. IMPT plan adaptation was achieved by only tuning the weights of a subset of beamlets, based on deformable image registration from the planning CT to each CBCT. Although OADmitigated random delivery errors more effectively than OAWon a fraction per fraction basis, both OAWand OADachieved the clinical goals for all ten patients, while BP failed for six cases. In the high-risk CTV, accumulated values ofD98%ranged between 97.15% and 99.73% of the prescription dose for OAD, with a median of 98.07%. For OAW, values between 95.02% and 99.26% were obtained, with a median of 97.61% of the prescription dose. Otherwise, the dose to most organs at risk was similar for all three scenarios. Globally, our results suggest that OAWcould be used as an alternative approach to OADfor most patients in order to reduce the clinical workload.
© 2021 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Monte Carlo; adaptive radiotherapy; cone-beam CT; head and neck cancer; proton therapy

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33503592      PMCID: PMC8313628          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abe050

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


  44 in total

1.  Comparison of organ-at-risk sparing and plan robustness for spot-scanning proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc photon therapy in head-and-neck cancer.

Authors:  Danique L J Barten; Jim P Tol; Max Dahele; Ben J Slotman; Wilko F A R Verbakel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties.

Authors:  A J Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Adaptive replanning strategies accounting for shrinkage in head and neck IMRT.

Authors:  Qiuwen Wu; Yuwei Chi; Peter Y Chen; Daniel J Krauss; Di Yan; Alvaro Martinez
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Feasibility of online IMPT adaptation using fast, automatic and robust dose restoration.

Authors:  Kinga Bernatowicz; Xavier Geets; Ana Barragan; Guillaume Janssens; Kevin Souris; Edmond Sterpin
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Predictors of weight loss during radiation therapy.

Authors:  M E Beaver; K E Matheny; D B Roberts; J N Myers
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.497

6.  Online adaption approaches for intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck patients based on cone beam CTs and Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  P Botas; J Kim; B Winey; H Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Comparing cone-beam CT intensity correction methods for dose recalculation in adaptive intensity-modulated photon and proton therapy for head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Christopher Kurz; George Dedes; Andreas Resch; Michael Reiner; Ute Ganswindt; Reinoud Nijhuis; Christian Thieke; Claus Belka; Katia Parodi; Guillaume Landry
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 4.089

8.  Recent developments and comprehensive evaluations of a GPU-based Monte Carlo package for proton therapy.

Authors:  Nan Qin; Pablo Botas; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Jan Schuemann; Zhen Tian; Steve B Jiang; Harald Paganetti; Xun Jia
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Robust Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Increases Estimated Clinical Benefit in Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Lisanne V van Dijk; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Bennie ten Haken; Hans Paul van der Laan; Aart A van 't Veld; Johannes A Langendijk; Erik W Korevaar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Feasibility of automated proton therapy plan adaptation for head and neck tumors using cone beam CT images.

Authors:  Christopher Kurz; Reinoud Nijhuis; Michael Reiner; Ute Ganswindt; Christian Thieke; Claus Belka; Katia Parodi; Guillaume Landry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 3.481

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance linear accelerator technology and adaptive radiation therapy: An overview for clinicians.

Authors:  William A Hall; Eric Paulson; X Allen Li; Beth Erickson; Christopher Schultz; Alison Tree; Musaddiq Awan; Daniel A Low; Brigid A McDonald; Travis Salzillo; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Amar U Kishan; Clifton D Fuller
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 2.  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

3.  A Comparison Study Between CNN-Based Deformed Planning CT and CycleGAN-Based Synthetic CT Methods for Improving iCBCT Image Quality.

Authors:  Bo Yang; Yankui Chang; Yongguang Liang; Zhiqun Wang; Xi Pei; Xie George Xu; Jie Qiu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 5.738

4.  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

5.  CT-on-Rails Versus In-Room CBCT for Online Daily Adaptive Proton Therapy of Head-and-Neck Cancers.

Authors:  Konrad P Nesteruk; Mislav Bobić; Arthur Lalonde; Brian A Winey; Antony J Lomax; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Integrating Structure Propagation Uncertainties in the Optimization of Online Adaptive Proton Therapy Plans.

Authors:  Lena Nenoff; Gregory Buti; Mislav Bobić; Arthur Lalonde; Konrad P Nesteruk; Brian Winey; Gregory Charles Sharp; Atchar Sudhyadhom; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-14       Impact factor: 6.575

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.