Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:02:43.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation on lung cancer patients’ adaptive planning of TomoTherapy utilising radiobiological measures and Planned Adaptive module

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Fan-Chi Su ,
Chengyu Shi ,
Panayiotis Mavroidis ,
Prema Rassiah-Szegedi  and
Niko Papanikolaou
Fan-Chi Su*
Affiliation:
Radiation Oncology Department, Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Chengyu Shi
Affiliation:
Division of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Panayiotis Mavroidis
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska Institute and Stockholm University, Sweden Department of Medical Physics, Larissa University Hospital, Larissa, Greece
Prema Rassiah-Szegedi
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Niko Papanikolaou
Affiliation:
Division of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
*
Correspondence to: Chengyu Shi, Division of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA. E-mail: shic@uthscsa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adaptive radiation therapy is a promising concept that allows individualised, dynamic treatment planning based on feedback of measurements. The TomoTherapy Planned Adaptive application, integrated to the helical TomoTherapy planning system, enables calculation of actual dose delivered to the patient for each treatment fraction according to the pretreatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) scan and image registration. As a result, new fractionation treatment plans are available if correction is necessary. In order to evaluate the real clinical effect, biological dose is preferred to physical dose. A biological parameter, biologically effective uniform dose (), has the advantages of not only reporting delivered dose but also facilitating the analysis of dose–response relations, which link radiation dose to the clinical effect. Therefore, in this study, four lung patients’ adaptive plans were evaluated using the in addition to physical doses estimated from the TomoTherapy Planned Adaptive module. Higher complication-free tumour control probability (P+) (of about 8%) was observed in patients treated with larger dose-per-fraction by using the in addition to the physical dose. Moreover, a significant increase of 13.2% in the P+ for the adaptive TomoTherapy plan in one of the lung cancer patients was also observed, which indicates the clinical benefit of adaptive TomoTherapy.

Keywords

Biologically effective uniform doseadaptive radiotherapyhelical TomoTherapytreatment planningradiobiological objectives
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 185 - 194
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

Mackie, TR, Kapatoes, J, Ruchala, K, Lu, W, Wu, C, Olivera, G, Forrest, L, Tome, W, Welsh, J, Jeraj, R, Harari, P, Reckwerdt, P, Paliwal, B, Ritter, M, Keller, H, Fowler, J, Mehta, M. Image guidance for precise conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56:89–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welsh, JS, Lock, M, Harari, PM, Tomé, WA, Fowler, J, Mackie, TR, Ritter, M, Kapatoes, J, Forrest, L, Chappell, R, Paliwal, B, Mehta, MP. Clinical implementation of adaptive helical tomotherapy: a unique approach to image-guided intensity modulated radiotherapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2006; 5:465–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, D, Vicini, F, Wong, J, Martinez, A. Adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42:123–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodford, C, Yartsev, S, Dar, AR, Bauman, G, Van Dyk, J. Adaptive radiotherapy planning on decreasing gross tumor volumes as seen on megavoltage computed tomography images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69:1316–1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodford, C, Yartsev, S, Van Dyk, J. Optimization of megavoltage CT scan registration settings for thoracic cases on helical tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52:N345–N354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siker, ML, Tomé, WA, Mehta, MP. Tumor volume changes on serial imaging with megavoltage CT for non-small-cell lung cancer during intensity-modulated radiotherapy: how reliable, consistent, and meaningful is the effect? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66:135–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, C, Chen, YJ, Liu, A, Schultheiss, TE, Wong, JY. Actual dose variation of parotid glands and spinal cord for nasopharyngeal cancer patients during radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70:1256–1262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramsey, CR, Langen, KM, Kupelian, PA, Scaperoth, DD, Meeks, SL, Mahan, SL, Seibert, RM. A technique for adaptive image-guided helical tomotherapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64:1237–1244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavroidis, P, Lind, BK, Brahme, A. Biologically effective uniform dose (D) for specification, report and comparison of dose response relations and treatment plans. Phys Med Biol 2001; 46:2607–2630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavroidis, P, Plataniotis, GA, Górka, MA, Lind, BK. Comments on ‘Reconsidering the definition of a dose-volume histogram’ – dose-mass histogram (DMH) versus dose-volume histogram (DVH) for predicting radiation-induced pneumonitis. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51:L43–L50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavroidis, P, Ferreira, BC, Shi, C, Lind, BK, Papanikolaou, N. Treatment plan comparison between helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT using radiobiological measures. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52:3817–3836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, FC, Mavroidis, P, Swanson, G et al. Treatment planning for prostate cancer: Biologically quantitative comparisons among conventional radiotherapy and three IMRT delivery techniques. Boston, MA: ASTRO 50th annual meeting, 2008.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P, Lind, BK, Van Dijk, J, Koedooder, K, De Neve, W, De Wagter, C, Planskoy, B, Rosenwald, JC, Proimos, B, Kappas, C, Claudia, D, Benassi, M, Chierego, G, Brahme, A. Comparison of conformal radiation therapy techniques within the dynamic radiotherapy project ‘Dynarad’. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45:2459–2481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Källman, P, Agren, A, Brahme, A. Tumour and normal tissue responses to fractionated non-uniform dose delivery. Int J Radiat Biol 1992; 62:249–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ågren Cronqvist, AK, Kallman, P, Brahme, A. Determination of the relative seriality of a tissue from its response to non-uniform dose delivery modeling. In: Baltas, D (ed). Clinical Radiobiology. Albert-Ludwigs-University, 1994, p. 127.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P, Ferreira, BC, Papanikolaou, N, Svensson, R, Kappas, C, Lind, BK, Brahme, A. Assessing the difference between planned and delivered intensity-modulated radiotherapy dose distributions based on radiobiological measures. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2006; 18:529–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, W, Battista, J, Van Dyk, J. Limitations of a convolution method for modeling geometric uncertainties in radiation therapy: the radiobiological dose-per-fraction effect. Med Phys 2004; 31:3034–3045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, WY, Chiu, B, Bauman, GS, Lock, M, Rodrigues, G, Ash, R, Lewis, C, Fenster, A, Battista, JJ, Van Dyk, J. Prostate contouring uncertainty in megavoltage computed tomography images acquired with a helical tomotherapy unit during image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65:595–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drabik, DM, MacKenzie, MA, Fallone, GB. Quantifying appropriate PTV setup margins: analysis of patient setup fidelity and intrafraction motion using post-treatment megavoltage computed tomography scans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68:1222–1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilby, W, Sage, J, Rabett, V. Tolerance levels for quality assurance of electron density values generated from CT in radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2002; 47:1485–1492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langen, KM, Meeks, SL, Poole, DO, Wagner, TH, Willoughby, TR, Kupelian, PA, Ruchala, KJ, Haimerl, J, Olivera, GH. The use of megavoltage CT (MVCT) images for dose recomputations. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50:4259–4276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed