» Articles » PMID: 35316795

DIR-based Models to Predict Weekly Anatomical Changes in Head and Neck Cancer Proton Therapy

Overview
Journal Phys Med Biol
Publisher IOP Publishing
Date 2022 Mar 22
PMID 35316795
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

. We proposed two anatomical models for head and neck patients to predict anatomical changes during the course of radiotherapy.. Deformable image registration was used to build two anatomical models: (1) the average model (AM) simulated systematic progressive changes across the patient cohort; (2) the refined individual model (RIM) used a patient's CT images acquired during treatment to update the prediction for each individual patient. Planning CTs and weekly CTs were used from 20 nasopharynx patients. This dataset included 15 training patients and 5 test patients. For each test patient, a spot scanning proton plan was created. Models were evaluated using CT number differences, contours, proton spot location deviations and dose distributions.. If no model was used, the CT number difference between the planning CT and the repeat CT at week 6 of treatment was on average 128.9 Hounsfield Units (HU) over the test population. This can be reduced to 115.5 HU using the AM, and to 110.5 HU using the RIM(RIM, updated at week (3). When the predicted contours from the models were used, the average mean surface distance of parotid glands can be reduced from 1.98 (no model) to 1.16 mm (AM) and 1.19 mm (RIM) at week 6. Using the proton spot range, the average anatomical uncertainty over the test population reduced from 4.47 ± 1.23 (no model) to 2.41 ± 1.12 mm (AM), and 1.89 ± 0.96 mm (RIM). Based on the gamma analysis, the average gamma index over the test patients was improved from 93.87 ± 2.48 % (no model) to 96.16 ± 1.84% (RIM) at week 6.. The AM and the RIM both demonstrated the ability to predict anatomical changes during the treatment. The RIM can gradually refine the prediction of anatomical changes based on the AM. The proton beam spots provided an accurate and effective way for uncertainty evaluation.

Citing Articles

Clinical advantages of incorporating predicted weekly anatomy in IMPT optimization with reduced setup error.

Zhang Y, Chan M Med Phys. 2024; 51(12):9207-9216.

PMID: 39298742 PMC: 11656292. DOI: 10.1002/mp.17412.


Large anatomical changes in head-and-neck cancers - A dosimetric comparison of online and offline adaptive proton therapy.

Bobic M, Lalonde A, Nesteruk K, Lee H, Nenoff L, Gorissen B Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2023; 40:100625.

PMID: 37090849 PMC: 10120292. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100625.


Pre-treatment analysis of non-rigid variations can assist robust intensity-modulated proton therapy plan selection for head and neck patients.

Zhang Y, Alshaikhi J, Amos R, Tan W, Anaya V, Pang Y Med Phys. 2022; 49(12):7683-7693.

PMID: 36083223 PMC: 10092578. DOI: 10.1002/mp.15971.

References
1.
Li H, Zhang X, Park P, Liu W, Chang J, Liao Z . Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2015; 114(3):367-72. PMC: 4400219. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.017. View

2.
Modat M, Ridgway G, Taylor Z, Lehmann M, Barnes J, Hawkes D . Fast free-form deformation using graphics processing units. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2009; 98(3):278-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2009.09.002. View

3.
McGowan S, Burnet N, Lomax A . Treatment planning optimisation in proton therapy. Br J Radiol. 2012; 86(1021):20120288. PMC: 4651068. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20120288. View

4.
Yu L, Tang T, Cassim N, Livingstone A, Cassidy D, Kairn T . Analysis of dose comparison techniques for patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(11):189-198. PMC: 6839377. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12726. View

5.
Brock K, Mutic S, McNutt T, Li H, Kessler M . Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 132. Med Phys. 2017; 44(7):e43-e76. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12256. View