Search

Purpose: The implementation of volumetric in‐room imaging for online adaptive radiotherapy makes extensive testing of this image data for treatment planning necessary. Especially for proton beams the higher sensitivity to stopping power properties of the tissue results in more stringent requirements. Current approaches mainly focus on recalculation of the plans on the new image data, lacking experimental verification, and ignoring the impact on the plan re‐optimization process. The aim of this study was to use gel and film dosimetry coupled with a three‐dimensional (3D) printed head phantom (based on the planning CT of the patient) for 3D range verification of intensity‐corrected cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image data for adaptive proton therapy. Methods: Single field uniform dose pencil beam scanning proton plans were optimized for three different patients on the patients' planning CT (planCT) and the patients' intensity‐corrected CBCT (scCBCT) for the same target volume using the same optimization constraints. The CBCTs were corrected on projection level using the planCT as a prior. The dose optimized on planCT and recalculated on scCBCT was compared in terms of proton range differences (80% distal fall‐off, recalculation). Moreover, the dose distribution resulting from recalculation of the scCBCT‐optimized plan on the planCT and the original planCT dose distribution were compared (simulation). Finally, the two plans of each patient were irradiated on the corresponding patient‐specific 3D printed head phantom using gel dosimetry inserts for one patient and film dosimetry for all three patients. Range differences were extracted from the measured dose distributions. The measured and the simulated range differences were corrected for range differences originating from the initial plans and evaluated. Results: The simulation approach showed high agreement with the standard recalculation approach. The median values of the range differences of these two methods agreed within 0.1 mm and the interquartile ranges (IQRs) within 0.3 mm for all three patients. The range differences of the film measurement were accurately matching with the simulation approach in the film plane. The median values of these range differences deviated less than 0.1 mm and the IQRs less than 0.4 mm. For the full 3D evaluation of the gel range differences, the median value and IQR matched those of the simulation approach within 0.7 and 0.5 mm, respectively. scCBCT‐ and planCT‐based dose distributions were found to have a range agreement better than 3 mm (median and IQR) for all considered scenarios (recalculation, simulation, and measurement). Conclusions: The results of this initial study indicate that an online adaptive proton workflow based on scatter‐corrected CBCT image data for head irradiations is feasible. The novel presented measurement‐ and simulation‐based method was shown to be equivalent to the standard literature recalculation approach. Additionally, it has the capability to catch effects of image differences on the treatment plan optimization. This makes the measurement‐based approach particularly interesting for quality assurance of CBCT‐based online adaptive proton therapy. The observed uncertainties could be kept within those of the registration and positioning. The proposed validation could also be applied for other alternative in‐room images, e.g. for MR‐based pseudoCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This work aims at investigating intensity corrected cone-beam x-ray computed tomography (CBCT) images for accurate dose calculation in adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for prostate and head and neck (H&N) cancer. A deformable image registration (DIR)-based method and a scatter correction approach using the image data obtained from DIR as prior are characterized and compared on the basis of the same clinical patient cohort for the first time. Methods: Planning CT (pCT) and daily CBCT data (reconstructed images and measured projections) of four H&N and four prostate cancer patients have been considered in this study. A previously validated Morphons algorithm was used for DIR of the planning CT to the current CBCT image, yielding a so-called virtual CT (vCT). For the first time, this approach was translated from H&N to prostate cancer cases in the scope of proton therapy. The warped pCT images were also used as prior for scatter correction of the CBCT projections for both tumor sites. Single field uniform dose and IMPT (only for H&N cases) treatment plans have been generated with a research version of a commercial planning system. Dose calculations on vCT and scatter corrected CBCT (CBCTcor) were compared by means of the proton range and a gamma-index analysis. For the H&N cases, an additional diagnostic replanning CT (rpCT) acquired within three days of the CBCT served as additional reference. For the prostate patients, a comprehensive contour comparison of CBCT and vCT, using a trained physician's delineation, was performed. Results: A high agreement of vCT and CBCTcor was found in terms of the proton range and gamma-index analysis. For all patients and indications between 95% and 100% of the proton dose profiles in beam's eye view showed a range agreement of better than 3 mm. The pass rate in a (2%,2 mm) gamma-comparison was between 96% and 100%. For H&N patients, an equivalent agreement of vCT and CBCTcor to the reference rpCT was observed. However, for the prostate cases, an insufficient accuracy of the vCT contours retrieved from DIR was found, while the CBCTcor contours showed very high agreement to the contours delineated on the raw CBCT. Conclusions: For H&N patients, no considerable differences of vCT and CBCTcor were found. For prostate cases, despite the high dosimetric agreement, the DIR yields incorrect contours, probably due to the more pronounced anatomical changes in the abdomen and the reduced soft-tissue contrast in the CBCT. Using the vCT as prior, these inaccuracies can be overcome and images suitable for accurate delineation and dose calculation in CBCT-based adaptive IMPT can be retrieved from scatter correction of the CBCT projections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: External beam radiotherapy with protons and heavier ions enables a tighter conformation of the applied dose to arbitrarily shaped tumor volumes with respect to photons, but is more sensitive to uncertainties in the radiotherapeutic treatment chain. Consequently, an independent verification of the applied treatment is highly desirable. For this purpose, the irradiation-induced β+-emitter distribution within the patient is detected shortly after irradiation by a commercial full-ring positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) scanner installed next to the treatment rooms at the Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT). A major challenge to this approach is posed by the small number of detected coincidences. This contribution aims at characterizing the performance of the used PET/CT device and identifying the best-performing reconstruction algorithm under the particular statistical conditions of PET-based treatment monitoring. Moreover, this study addresses the impact of radiation background from the intrinsically radioactive lutetium-oxyorthosilicate (LSO)-based detectors at low counts. Methods: The authors have acquired 30 subsequent PET scans of a cylindrical phantom emulating a patientlike activity pattern and spanning the entire patient counting regime in terms of true coincidences and random fractions (RFs). Accuracy and precision of activity quantification, image noise, and geometrical fidelity of the scanner have been investigated for various reconstruction algorithms and settings in order to identify a practical, well-suited reconstruction scheme for PET-based treatment verification. Truncated listmode data have been utilized for separating the effects of small true count numbers and high RFs on the reconstructed images. A corresponding simulation study enabled extending the results to an even wider range of counting statistics and to additionally investigate the impact of scatter coincidences. Eventually, the recommended reconstruction scheme has been applied to exemplary postirradiation patient data-sets. Results: Among the investigated reconstruction options, the overall best results in terms of image noise, activity quantification, and accurate geometrical recovery were achieved using the ordered subset expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm with time-of-flight (TOF) and point-spread function (PSF) information. For this algorithm, reasonably accurate (better than 5%) and precise (uncertainty of the mean activity below 10%) imaging can be provided down to 80 000 true coincidences at 96% RF. Image noise and geometrical fidelity are generally improved for fewer iterations. The main limitation for PET-based treatment monitoring has been identified in the small number of true coincidences, rather than the high intrinsic random background. Application of the optimized reconstruction scheme to patient data-sets results in a 25%-50% reduced image noise at a comparable activity quantification accuracy and an improved geometrical performance with respect to the formerly used reconstruction scheme at HIT, adopted from nuclear medicine applications. Conclusions: Under the poor statistical conditions in PET-based treatment monitoring, improved results can be achieved by considering PSF and TOF information during image reconstruction and by applying less iterations than in conventional nuclear medicine imaging. Geometrical fidelity and image noise are mainly limited by the low number of true coincidences, not the high LSO-related random background. The retrieved results might also impact other emerging PET applications at low counting statistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The treatment of moving tumor entities is expected to have superior clinical outcomes, using image‐guided adaptive intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Purpose: For 21 lung cancer patients, IMPT dose calculations were performed on scatter‐corrected 4D cone beam CTs (4DCBCTcor) to evaluate their potential for triggering treatment adaptation. Additional dose calculations were performed on corresponding planning 4DCTs and day‐of‐treatment 4D virtual CTs (4DvCTs). Methods: A 4DCBCT correction workflow, previously validated on a phantom, generates 4DvCT (CT‐to‐CBCT deformable registration) and 4DCBCTcor images (projection‐based correction using 4DvCT as a prior) with 10 phase bins, using day‐of‐treatment free‐breathing CBCT projections and planning 4DCT images as input. Using a research planning system, robust IMPT plans administering eight fractions of 7.5 Gy were created on a free‐breathing planning CT (pCT) contoured by a physician. The internal target volume (ITV) was overridden with muscle tissue. Robustness settings for range and setup uncertainties were 3% and 6 mm, and a Monte Carlo dose engine was used. On every phase of planning 4DCT, day‐of‐treatment 4DvCT, and 4DCBCTcor, the dose was recalculated. For evaluation, image analysis as well as dose analysis were performed using mean error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) analysis, dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameters, and 2%/2‐mm gamma pass rate analysis. Action levels (1.6% ITV D98 and 90% gamma pass rate) based on our previous phantom validation study were set to determine which patients had a loss of dosimetric coverage. Results: Quality enhancements of 4DvCT and 4DCBCTcor over 4DCBCT were observed. ITV D98% and bronchi D2% had its largest agreement for 4DCBCTcor–4DvCT, and the largest gamma pass rates (>94%, median 98%) were found for 4DCBCTcor–4DvCT. Deviations were larger and gamma pass rates were smaller for 4DvCT–4DCT and 4DCBCTcor–4DCT. For five patients, deviations were larger than the action levels, suggesting substantial anatomical changes between pCT and CBCT projections acquisition. Conclusions: This retrospective study shows the feasibility of daily proton dose calculation on 4DCBCTcor for lung tumor patients. The applied method is of clinical interest as it generates up‐to‐date in‐room images, accounting for breathing motion and anatomical changes. This information could be used to trigger replanning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of central lung tumors with photon or proton therapy has a risk of increased toxicity. Treatment planning studies comparing accumulated doses for state‐of‐the‐art treatment techniques, such as MR‐guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), are currently lacking. Purpose: We conducted a comparison of accumulated doses for MRgRT, robustly optimized non‐adaptive IMPT, and online adaptive IMPT for central lung tumors. A special focus was set on analyzing the accumulated doses to the bronchial tree, a parameter linked to high‐grade toxicities. Methods: Data of 18 early‐stage central lung tumor patients, treated at a 0.35 T MR‐linac in eight or five fractions, were analyzed. Three gated treatment scenarios were compared: (S1) online adaptive MRgRT, (S2) non‐adaptive IMPT, and (S3) online adaptive IMPT. The treatment plans were recalculated or reoptimized on the daily imaging data acquired during MRgRT, and accumulated over all treatment fractions. Accumulated dose‐volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the gross tumor volume (GTV), lung, heart, and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) within 2 cm of the planning target volume (PTV) were extracted for each scenario and compared in Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests between S1 & S2, and S1 & S3. Results: The accumulated GTV D98% was above the prescribed dose for all patients and scenarios. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) of the mean ipsilateral lung dose (S2: –8%; S3: –23%) and mean heart dose (S2: –79%; S3: –83%) were observed for both proton scenarios compared to S1. The bronchial tree D0.1cc was significantly lower for S3 (S1: 48.1 Gy; S3: 39.2 Gy; p = 0.005), but not significantly different for S2 (S2: 45.0 Gy; p = 0.094), compared to S1. The D0.1cc for S2 and S3 compared to S1 was significantly (p < 0.05) smaller for OARs within 1–2 cm of the PTV (S1: 30.2 Gy; S2: 24.6 Gy; S3: 23.1 Gy), but not significantly different for OARs within 1 cm of the PTV. Conclusions: A significant dose sparing potential of non‐adaptive and online adaptive proton therapy compared to MRgRT for OARs in close, but not direct proximity of central lung tumors was identified. The near‐maximum dose to the bronchial tree was not significantly different for MRgRT and non‐adaptive IMPT. Online adaptive IMPT achieved significantly lower doses to the bronchial tree compared to MRgRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]