Search

Highlights • Auto-contouring accuracy and contouring time were evaluated using two procedures. • Dice coefficient was better for the multiple atlases procedure than for one atlas. • Contouring time of the multiple atlases procedure is clinically acceptable., Atlas-based auto-segmentation (ABS) procedure used in radiotherapy can be classified into two groups, one using one atlas per patient (sSM) and the other using multiple atlases (sMM). This study evaluated auto-contouring accuracy and contouring time in patients with prostate cancer using the two procedures. The Dice similarity coefficient of sMM was significantly better than that of sSM (prostate [median, 0.81 (range, 0.66–0.91) vs. 0.64 (0.27–0.71), p

Highlights • Dose calculations between synthetic CT and planning CT acquired at the same treatment fraction have small differences. • The safe omission of repeat CT during H&N RT is feasible when CBCT is available. • Synthetic CT verification appears to overestimate the need to re-plan, therefore not putting patients at risk. • Repeat CT should be used for replanning, being guided by CBCT and synthetic CT., Objectives The study aimed to assess the suitability of deformable image registration (DIR) software to generate synthetic CT (sCT) scans for dose verification during radiotherapy to the head and neck. Planning and synthetic CT dose volume histograms were compared to evaluate dosimetric changes during the treatment course. Methods Eligible patients had locally advanced (stage III, IVa and IVb) oropharyngeal cancer treated with primary radiotherapy. Weekly CBCT images were acquired post treatment at fractions 1, 6, 11, 16, 21 and 26 over a 30 fraction treatment course. Each CBCT was deformed with the planning CT to generate a sCT which was used to calculate the dose at that point in the treatment. A repeat planning CT2 was acquired at fraction 16 and deformed with the fraction 16 CBCT to compare differences between the calculations mid-treatment. Results 20 patients were evaluated generating 138 synthetic CT sets. The single fraction mean dose to PTV_HR between the synthetic and planning CT did not vary, although dose to 95% of PTV_HR was smaller at week 6 compared to planning (difference 2.0%, 95% CI (0.8 to 3.1), p = 0.0). There was no statistically significant difference in PRV_brainstem or PRV_spinal cord maximum dose, although greater variation using the sCT calculations was reported. The mean dose to structures based on the fraction 16 sCT and CT2 scans were similar. Conclusions Synthetic CT provides comparable dose calculations to those of a repeat planning CT; however the limitations of DIR must be understood before it is applied within the clinical setting.

Highlights • Different registration methods for position verification of oesophageal cancer. • Clipbox around PTV and vertebrae with soft tissue match was best suited. • Tumour location influences the required setup margins. • A large variety of anatomical changes is revealed when using kV-CBCT. • GTV Reduction and diaphragm position changes were most common anatomical changes., Purpose To evaluate different registration methods, setup margins and number of corrections for CBCT-based position verification for oesophageal cancer and to evaluate anatomical changes during the course of radiotherapy treatment. Methods From 50 patients, 440 CBCT-scans were registered automatically using a soft tissue or bone registration algorithm and compared to the clinical match. Moreover, relevant anatomical changes were monitored. A sub-analysis was performed to evaluate if tumour location influenced setup variations. Margin calculation was performed and the number of setup corrections was estimated. Results were compared to a patient group previously treated with MV-EPID based position verification. Results CBCT-based setup variations were smaller than EPID-based setup variations, resulting in smaller setup margins of 5.9 mm (RL), 7.5 mm (CC) and 4.7 mm (AP) versus 6.0 mm, 7.8 mm and 5.5 mm, respectively. A reduction in average number of setup corrections per patient was found from 0.75 to 0.36. From all automatically registered CBCT-scans, a clipbox around PTV and vertebras combined with soft tissue registration resulted in the smallest setup margins of 5.9 mm (RL), 7.7 mm (CC), 4.8 mm (AP) and smallest average number of corrections of 0.38. For distally located tumours, a setup margin of 7.7 mm (CC) was required compared to 5.6 mm for proximal tumours. Reduction of GTV volume, heart volume and change in diaphragm position were observed in 16, 10 and 15 patients, respectively. Conclusions CBCT-based set-up variations are smaller than EPID-based variations and vary according to tumour location. When using kV-CBCT a large variety of anatomical changes is revealed, which cannot be observed with MV-EPID.