Assessment of setup uncertainty in hypofractionated liver radiation therapy with a breath-hold technique using automatic image registration-based image guidance.
Breath Holding
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
/ methods
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Liver Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Prognosis
Radiation Dose Hypofractionation
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Image-Guided
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
/ methods
Uncertainty
IGRT
In-room CT
Liver radiotherapy
PTV margin
Setup uncertainty
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Aug 2019
30 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
14
02
2019
accepted:
21
08
2019
entrez:
1
9
2019
pubmed:
1
9
2019
medline:
11
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Target localization in radiation therapy is affected by numerous sources of uncertainty. Despite measures to minimize the breathing motion, the treatment of hypofractionated liver radiation therapy is further challenged by residual uncertainty coming from involuntary organ motion and daily changes in the shape and location of abdominal organs. To address the residual uncertainty, clinics implement image-guided radiation therapy at varying levels of soft-tissue contrast. This study utilized the treatment records from the patients that have received hypofractionated liver radiation therapy using in-room computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess the setup uncertainty and to estimate the appropriate planning treatment volume (PTV) margins in the absence of in-room CT imaging. We collected 917 pre-treatment daily in-room CT images from 69 patients who received hypofractionated radiation therapy to the liver with the inspiration breath-hold technique. For each treatment, the daily CT was initially aligned to the planning CT based on the shape of the liver automatically using a CT-CT alignment software. After the initial alignment, manual shift corrections were determined by visual inspection of the two images, and the corrections were applied to shift the patient to the physician-approved treatment position. Considering the final alignment as the gold-standard setup, systematic and random uncertainties in the automatic alignment were quantified, and the uncertainties were used to calculate the PTV margins. The median discrepancy between the final and automatic alignment was 1.1 mm (0-24.3 mm), and 38% of treated fractions required manual corrections of ≥3 mm. The systematic uncertainty was 1.5 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, 1.1 mm in the left-right (LR) direction, and 2.4 mm in the superior-inferior (SI) direction. The random uncertainty was 2.2 mm in the AP, 1.9 mm in the LR, and 2.2 mm in the SI direction. The PTV margins recommended to be used in the absence of in-room CT imaging were 5.3 mm in the AP, 3.5 mm in the LR, and 5.1 mm in the SI direction. Manual shift correction based on soft-tissue alignment is substantial in the treatment of the abdominal region. In-room CT can reduce PTV margin by up to 5 mm, which may be especially beneficial for dose escalation and normal tissue sparing in hypofractionated liver radiation therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Target localization in radiation therapy is affected by numerous sources of uncertainty. Despite measures to minimize the breathing motion, the treatment of hypofractionated liver radiation therapy is further challenged by residual uncertainty coming from involuntary organ motion and daily changes in the shape and location of abdominal organs. To address the residual uncertainty, clinics implement image-guided radiation therapy at varying levels of soft-tissue contrast. This study utilized the treatment records from the patients that have received hypofractionated liver radiation therapy using in-room computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess the setup uncertainty and to estimate the appropriate planning treatment volume (PTV) margins in the absence of in-room CT imaging.
METHODS
METHODS
We collected 917 pre-treatment daily in-room CT images from 69 patients who received hypofractionated radiation therapy to the liver with the inspiration breath-hold technique. For each treatment, the daily CT was initially aligned to the planning CT based on the shape of the liver automatically using a CT-CT alignment software. After the initial alignment, manual shift corrections were determined by visual inspection of the two images, and the corrections were applied to shift the patient to the physician-approved treatment position. Considering the final alignment as the gold-standard setup, systematic and random uncertainties in the automatic alignment were quantified, and the uncertainties were used to calculate the PTV margins.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median discrepancy between the final and automatic alignment was 1.1 mm (0-24.3 mm), and 38% of treated fractions required manual corrections of ≥3 mm. The systematic uncertainty was 1.5 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction, 1.1 mm in the left-right (LR) direction, and 2.4 mm in the superior-inferior (SI) direction. The random uncertainty was 2.2 mm in the AP, 1.9 mm in the LR, and 2.2 mm in the SI direction. The PTV margins recommended to be used in the absence of in-room CT imaging were 5.3 mm in the AP, 3.5 mm in the LR, and 5.1 mm in the SI direction.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Manual shift correction based on soft-tissue alignment is substantial in the treatment of the abdominal region. In-room CT can reduce PTV margin by up to 5 mm, which may be especially beneficial for dose escalation and normal tissue sparing in hypofractionated liver radiation therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31470860
doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1361-6
pii: 10.1186/s13014-019-1361-6
pmc: PMC6717376
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
154Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Jul 1;44(4):911-9
pubmed: 10386650
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Oct 1;45(3):603-11
pubmed: 10524412
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Mar 15;46(5):1281-90
pubmed: 10725642
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Dec 1;51(5):1410-21
pubmed: 11728702
Med Phys. 2003 Jun;30(6):1198-210
pubmed: 12852544
Med Phys. 2003 Oct;30(10):2750-7
pubmed: 14596313
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004 Jan;14(1):52-64
pubmed: 14752733
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004 Jan;14(1):65-75
pubmed: 14752734
Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):942-51
pubmed: 15895577
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Oct 1;63(2):610-4
pubmed: 16095848
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 1;64(3):751-9
pubmed: 16458774
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Apr 1;64(5):1559-69
pubmed: 16580505
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Oct 1;66(2):610-9
pubmed: 16966004
Med Phys. 2006 Oct;33(10):3874-900
pubmed: 17089851
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Mar 1;67(3):742-9
pubmed: 17197133
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 May 1;68(1):282-90
pubmed: 17448881
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Apr;87(1):65-73
pubmed: 18267345
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Sep 1;75(1):302-8
pubmed: 19628342
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Dec;93(3):424-9
pubmed: 19854526
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Apr 1;79(5):1565-71
pubmed: 20832187
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jan 09;9:11
pubmed: 24401365
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Mar 23;12(1):61
pubmed: 28335794
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 Nov - Dec;7(6):e471-e478
pubmed: 28377138
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Jan;19(1):39-45
pubmed: 29152835