Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:22:12.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Determination of target volumes in radiotherapy and the implications of technological advances: a literature review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Bongile Mzenda*
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
M.E. Hosseini-Ashrafi
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
A. Palmer
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
D.F. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
H. Liu
Affiliation:
Institute of Industrial Research, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
D.J. Brown
Affiliation:
Institute of Industrial Research, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
*
Correspondence to: Bongile Mzenda, Radiotherapy Physics Section, Medical Physics Department, St. Mary's Hospital, Milton Road, Portsmouth, PO3 6AD, UK. E-mail: Bongile.Mzenda@porthosp.nhs.uk

Abstract

This study assesses the influence of new techniques and technologies in radiotherapy on the derivation and applicability of the margins currently used for treatment planning. The validity of the continued use of the recommendations of International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) and other recommendations as a result of the additional information derived from these emerging techniques is also reviewed. The ICRU formulations still remain fundamental in the derivation of target volumes in radiotherapy; however, revisions to these have been recommended through various experimental and modelling techniques leading to the publication of various margin recipes. These recipes are used for margin definitions in new radiotherapy techniques including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The use of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) techniques leads to the reduction in organ motion uncertainties and setup errors, allowing for the adjustment of margins and treatment plans as well as dose escalation. Clinical trials are still needed to validate most of the new techniques in radiotherapy, particularly in IGRT techniques leading to adaptive radiotherapy. It is recommended that well devised clinical trials should be conducted to investigate fully the efficacy of these new techniques, particularly in radiotherapy image guidance and adaptive radiotherapy. Such trials would validate any recommendations regarding the current clinical margins and impact on their continued clinical use.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ICRU. In: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. ICRU Report 50. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1993.Google Scholar
ICRU. In: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50) ICRU Report 62. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 1999.Google Scholar
Price, GJ, Moore, CJ.A method to calculate coverage probability from uncertainties in radiotherapy via a statistical shape model. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52: 19471965.Google Scholar
Killoran, JH, Cooy, HM, Gladstone, DJ, Welte, FJ, Beard, CJ.A numerical simulation of organ motion and daily set-up uncertainties: implications for radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 37: 213221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mageras, GS, Fuks, Z, Leibel, SLet al. Computerised design of target margins for treatment uncertainties in conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43: 437445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekberg, L, Holmberg, O, Wittgren, I, Landberg, T, Bjelkengren, G.What margins should be added to clinical target volumes in radiotherapy treatment planning for lung cancer? Radiother Oncol 1998; 48: 7177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beltran, C, Herman, MG, Davis, BJ.Planning target margin calculations for prostate radiotherapy based on intrafraction and interfraction motion using four localisation methods. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 289295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waschek, T, Levegrun, S, van Kampen, M, Glesner, M, Engenhart-Cabillic, R, Schlegel, W.Determination of target volumes for three-dimensional radiotherapy of cancer patients with a fuzzy system. Fuzzy Sets Systems 1997; 89: 361370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caudrelier, J-M, Vial, S, Gibon, Det al. MRI definition of target volumes using fuzzy logic method for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55: 225233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenzie, AL, van Herk, M, Meijnheer, B.Margins for geometric uncertainty around organs at risk in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2002; 62: 299307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muren, LP, Ekerold, R, Kvinnsland, Y, Karlsdottir, A, Dahl, O.On the use of margins for geometrical uncertainties around the rectum in radiotherapy planning. Radiother Oncol 2004; 70: 1119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, LB, Ma, J.Challenges in the clinical application of advanced technologies to reduce radiation-associated normal tissue injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Boer, HCJ, van Os, MJH, Jansen, PP, Heijmen, BJM.Application of the no action level (NAL) protocol to correct for prostate motion based on electronic portal imaging of implanted markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61: 969983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erridge, SC, Seppenwoolde, Y, Muller, SHet al. Portal imaging to assess set-up errors, tumour motion and tumour shrinkage during conformal radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66: 7585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Herk, M.Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2004; 14: 5264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasch, C, Steenbakkers, R, van Herk, M.Target definition in prostate, head, and neck. Semin Radiat Oncol 2005; 15: 136145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, Z, Wilkins, D, Eapen, L, Morash, C, Wassef, Y, Gerig, L.A study of prostate delineation referenced against a gold standard created from the visible human data. Radiother Oncol 2007; 85: 239246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, CL, Humm, JH, Larson, Set al. Towards multidimensional radiotherapy (MD-CRT): Biological imaging and biological conformality. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47: 551560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mac Manus, MP, Hicks, RJ.Impact of PET on radiation therapy planning. PET Clinics 2006; 1: 317328.Google ScholarPubMed
Grégoire, V, Coche, E, Cosnard, G, Reychler, H.Selection and delineation of lymph node target volumes in head and neck conformal radiotherapy. Proposal for standardizing terminology and procedure based on the surgical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 56: 135150.Google ScholarPubMed
Grégoire, V, Levendag, P, Ang, KKet al. CT-based delineation of lymph node levels and related CTVs in the node-negative neck: DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC, NCIC, RTOG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol 2003; 69: 227236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, PJ, Wijers, OB, Lagerwaard, FJ, Levendag, PC.A three-dimensional CT-based target definition for elective irradiation of the neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 3339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroom, JC, Heijmen, BJM.Geometrical uncertainties, radiotherapy planning margins, and the ICRU-62 report. Radiother Oncol 2002; 64: 7583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroom, JC, de Boer, HCJ, Huizenga, H, Vissier, AG.Inclusion of geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy treatment planning by means of coverage probability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43: 905919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Herk, M, Remeijer, P, Rasch, C, Lebesque, JV.The probability of correct target dosage: Dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47: 11211135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijer, GJ, Rasch, C, Remeijer, P, Lebescue, JV.Three-dimensional analysis of delineation errors, set-up errors, and organ motion during radiotherapy of bladder cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55: 12771287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelsson, A, Mercke, C, Johansson, K.Systematic setup errors for IMRT in the head and neck region: effect on dose distribution. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66: 303311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICRU. In: Prescribing, recording and reporting electron beam therapy. ICRU Report 71. J ICRU 2004: 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, AL.How should breathing motion be combined with other errors when drawing margins around clinical target volumes. BJR 2000; 73: 973977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Herk, M, Witte, M, van der Geer, J, Schneider, C, Lebesque, JV.Biologic and physical fractionation effects of random geometric errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57: 14601471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mzenda, B, Hosseini-Ashrafi, ME, Palmer, A, Liu, H, Brown, DJ. Quantification of the effects of random and systematic errors in external beam radiotherapy using a Monte Carlo simulation. IPEM Biennial Radiotherapy Meeting, Bath, UK, 2008.Google Scholar
BIR. In: Geometric uncertainties in radiotherapy—defining the planning target volume. British Institute of Radiology, 2003.Google Scholar
Mzenda, B, Hosseini-Ashrafi, ME, Palmer, A, Liu, H, Brown, DJ. An intelligent Gaussian Mixture Model to improve delineation accuracy in radiotherapy. IPEM Biennial Radiotherapy Meeting, Bath, UK, 2008.Google Scholar
Çetin, E.Handling organ motion in radiotherapy of cancer via Markov chains. Appl Math Comput 2007; 184: 149155.Google Scholar
Sixel, KE, Ruschin, M, Tirona, R, Cheung, PCF.Digital fluoroscopy to quantify lung tumour motion: Potential for patient specific planning target volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57: 717723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onishi, H, Kuriyama, K, Komiyama, Tet al. A new irradiation system for lung cancer combining linear accelerator, computed tomography, patient self-breath-holding, and patient directed beam-control without respiratory monitoring devices. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56: 1420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, AM, Siracuse, KM, Hayman, JA, Balter, JM.Evaluation of the influence of breathing on the movement and modelling of lung tumours. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: 12511257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietzel, E, Liu, AK, Doppke, KPet al. Design of 4D treatment planning target volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66: 287–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Convery, DJ, Rosenbloom, ME.Treatment delivery accuracy in intensity-modulated conformal radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1995; 40: 979999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xing, L, Lin, Z, Donaldson, S.Dosimetric effects of patient displacement and collimator and gantry angle misalignment on intensity modulated radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2000; 56: 97108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Astreinidou, E, Bel, A, Raaijmakers, CPJ, Terhaard, CHJ, Lagendijk, JJW.Adequate margins for random set-up uncertainties in head-and-neck IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61: 938944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyttens, JJ.Target volume definition for IMRT. Eur J Cancer 2005; 3(Suppl): 22.Google Scholar
Ling, CC, Yorke, E, Fuks, Z.From IMRT to IGRT: Frontierland or neverland? Radiother Oncol 2006; 78: 119122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, SE, Stanley, S, Sydes, Met al. Recommendations on best practice for radiographer set-up of conformal radiotherapy treatment for patients with prostate cancer: evidence developed during the MRC RT01 trial (ISRTCN 47772397). J Radiother Pract 2004; 4: 107117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, JM, Rosewall, T, Bayley, Aet al. Phase II trial of hypofractionated image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69:10841089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed