Online daily assessment of dose change in head and neck radiotherapy without dose‐recalculation. (7th August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vickress, Jason R.; Battista, Jerry; Barnett, Rob; Yartsev, Slav
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 5(2018)
• Page Start: 659
• Page End: 665
• Publication Date: 2018-08-07
• Subjects: adaptive radiotherapy -- cone beam CT -- deformable image registration -- head and neck cancer -- image‐guided radiotherapy -- radiotherapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12432
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Head and neck cancers are commonly treated with radiation therapy, but due to possible volume changes, plan adaptation may be required during the course of treatment. Currently, plan adaptations consume significant clinical resources. Existing methods to evaluate the need for plan adaptation requires deformable image registration (DIR) to a new CT simulation or daily cone beam CT (CBCT) images and the recalculation of the dose distribution. In this study, we explore a tool to assist the decision for plan adaptation using a CBCT without re‐computation of dose, allowing for rapid online assessment. Methods: This study involved 18 head and neck cancer patients treated with CBCT image guidance who had their treatment plan modified based on a new CT simulation (ReCT). Dose changes were estimated using different methods and compared to the current gold standard of using DIR between the planning CT scan (PCT) and ReCT with recomputed dose. The first and second methods used DIR between the PCT and daily CBCT with the planned dose or recalculated dose from the ReCT respectively, with the dose transferred to the CBCT using rigid registration. The necessity of plan adaptation was assessed by the change in dose to 95% of the planning target volume (D95) and mean dose to the parotids. Results: The treatment plans were adapted clinically for all 18 patients but only 7 actually needed an adaptation yielding 11 unnecessary adaptations. Applying a method using the daily CBCT with the planned dose distribution would have yielded only four unnecessary adaptations and no missed adaptations: a significant improvement from that done clinically. Conclusion: Using the DIR between the planning CT and daily CBCT can flag cases for plan adaptation before every fraction while not requiring a new re‐planning CT scan and dose recalculation.