Serial and parallel organ-at-risk-specific noncoplanar arc optimization for small versus large target volumes in liver SBRT.
liver SBRT
noncoplanar
parallel OARs
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jun 2024
18 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
10
04
2024
received:
18
10
2023
accepted:
23
04
2024
medline:
19
6
2024
pubmed:
19
6
2024
entrez:
19
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Noncoplanar arc optimization has been shown to reduce OAR doses in SRS/SRT and has the potential to reduce doses to OARs in SBRT. Extracranial targets have additional considerations, including large OARs and, in the case of the liver, volume constraints on the healthy liver. Considering pathlengths through OARs that encompass target volumes may lead to specific dose reductions as in the encompassing healthy liver tissue. These optimizations must also leverage delivery efficiency and trajectory sampling to ensure ease of clinical translation. The purpose of this research is to generate optimized static-couch arcs that separately consider serial and parallel OARs and arc delivery efficiency, with a trajectory sampling metric, towards the aim of reducing dose to OARs and the surrounding healthy liver tissue. Separate BEV cost maps were created for parallel, and serial OARs by means of a fast ray-triangle intersection algorithm. An additional BEV cost map was created for the liver which, by definition, encompasses the liver tumors. The individual costs of these maps were summed and combined with the sampling metric for 100 000 random combinations of arc trajectories. A search algorithm was applied to find an arc trajectory solution that satisfied BEV cost and sampling optimization, while also ensuring an efficient delivery was possible with a low number of arcs. This method of arc selection was evaluated for 16 liver SBRT patients characterized by small and large target volumes. Comparisons were made with a clinical arc template of coplanar arcs. Dosimetric plan quality was evaluated using published guidelines and metrics from RTOG1112. Four of five plan quality metrics for the liver were significantly reduced when planned with optimized noncoplanar arcs. Median (range) reductions of the volumes receiving 10, 18, and 21 Gy were found of 140.4 (295.8) cc (p = 0.001), 28.2 (230.6) cc (p = 0.002) and 18.5 (155.5) cc (p = 0.04). A significant increase in median (range) dose to the right kidney of 0.2 ± 0.9 Gy (p = 0.03) was also found using optimized noncoplanar arcs, which was below the tolerance of 10 Gy for all cases. The average number of arcs chosen was 4 ± 1. Optimizing serial and parallel OARs separately during static couch noncoplanar arc selection significantly reduced the dose to the liver during SBRT using a moderate number of arcs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14396Subventions
Organisme : Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR)
ID : GSD 167032
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Smyth G, Evans PM, Bamber JC, Bedford JL. Recent developments in non‐coplanar radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2019;92(1097):20180908.
Yang Y, Zhang P, Happersett L, et al. Choreographing couch and collimator in volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(4):1238‐1247.
Dong P, Lee P, Ruan D, et al. 4π non‐coplanar liver SBRT: a novel delivery technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(5):1360‐1366.
Dong P, Lee P, Ruan D, et al. 4π noncoplanar stereotactic body radiation therapy for centrally located or larger lung tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86(3):407‐413.
Meedt G, Alber M, Nüsslin F. Non‐coplanar beam direction optimization for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(18):2999.
Guyer G, Mueller S, Koechli C, et al. Enabling non‐isocentric dynamic trajectory radiotherapy by integration of dynamic table translations. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(17):175003.
Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: iMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35(1):310‐317.
Yu VY, Landers A, Woods K, et al. A prospective 4π radiation therapy clinical study in recurrent high‐grade glioma patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(1):144‐151.
Woods K, Chin RK, Cook KA, et al. Automated non‐coplanar VMAT for dose escalation in recurrent head and neck cancer patients. Cancers. 2021;13(8):1910.
Clark GM, Popple RA, Prendergast BM, et al. Plan quality and treatment planning technique for single isocenter cranial radiosurgery with volumetric modulated arc therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012;2(4):306‐313.
Lincoln JD, MacDonald RL, Little B, Syme A, Thomas CG. Comparison of anatomically informed class solution template trajectories with patient‐specific trajectories for stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23(11):e13765.
MacDonald RL, Robar JL, Thomas CG. Overlap‐guided fixed‐patient support positioning optimization for cranial SRT. Med Phys. 2017;44(1):17‐27.
MacDonald RL, Syme A, Little B, Ward L, Thomas CG. Toward the combined optimization of dynamic axes (CODA) for stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery using fixed couch trajectories. Med Phys. 2020;47(2):307‐316.
MacDonald RL, Thomas CG. Dynamic trajectory‐based couch motion for improvement of radiation therapy trajectories in cranial SRT. Med Phys. 2015;42(5):2317‐2325.
Woods K, Nguyen D, Tran A, et al. Viability of noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016;1(1):67‐75.
Möller T, Trumbore B. Fast, minimum storage ray/triangle intersection. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Courses. 2005:7‐es.
Dawson LA, Zhu A, Knox J, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG 1112 randomized phase III study of sorafenib versus stereotactic body radiation therapy followed by sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiat Oncol. 2020. https://www.ctsu.org. Available online.
Lincoln JD, MacDonald RL, Syme A, Thomas CG. Static couch non‐coplanar arc selection optimization for lung SBRT treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68:155011.
Northway C, Lincoln JD, Little B, Syme A, Thomas CG. Patient‐specific collision zones for 4π trajectory optimized radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2022;49(3):1407‐1416.
MacDonald RL, Lincoln J, Church C, Thomas C, Syme A. Mean arc distance (MAD): a quantity to compare trajectory 4π sampling in single target cranial stereotactic radiotherapy. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2022;8(5):055006.
Han T, Mikell JK, Salehpour M, Mourtada F. Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model‐based convolution methods in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 2011;38(5):2651‐2664.
Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. J Neurosurg. 2000;93(suppl 3):219‐222.
Paddick I, Lippitz B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg. 2006;105:194‐201. Supplement.
Woolson RF. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. In: Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials. Wiley; 2007:1‐3.
Wang G, Wang H, Zhuang H, Yang R. An investigation of non‐coplanar volumetric modulated radiation therapy for locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer using a trajectory optimization method. Front Oncol. 2021;11:717634.