Comparison between bone matching and marker matching for evaluation of intra- and inter-fractional changes in accumulated dose of carbon ion radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kubota, Yoshiki; Katoh, Hiroyuki; Shibuya, Kei; Shiba, Shintaro; Abe, Satoshi; Sakai, Makoto; Yuasa, Daichi; Tsuda, Kazuhisa; Ohno, Tatsuya; Nakano, Takashi
• Is Part Of: Radiotherapy and oncology. Volume 137(2019)
• Page Start: 77
• Page End: 82
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: Carbon ion radiotherapy -- Accumulated dose distribution -- Intra- and inter-fractional anatomical change -- Tumor matching -- Bone matching -- Hepatocellular carcinoma; Oncology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.9940642
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.026
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-8140

Abstract

Highlights: Accumulated doses were calculated for inter- and intra-fractional change in CIRT. All of the accumulated doses were acceptable using either bone or marker matching. Marker matching was a better positioning technique than bone matching. Abstract: Background and purpose: To determine whether bone matching (BM) or marker matching (MM) is the better positioning technique for carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) of primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we prospectively evaluated accumulated dose distributions with respect to intra- and inter-fractional anatomical changes. Materials and methods: The accumulated doses in ten patients with HCC were evaluated, with the doses being calculated with respect to inter-fractional changes (InterDose) on treatment-room CT images on day 1 or day 2 of therapy (RefCT). This was accomplished by warping 3-day CT dose distributions to the RefCT through deformable registration. The accumulated doses were also calculated with respect to intra-fractional change (IntraDose) calculated by warping dose distributions for three 4DCT phases to the RefCT. Each dose was evaluated using dose–volume parameters for the clinical target volume (CTV) percentages receiving greater than 95% of the prescription dose (V95 ). Results: The InterDose CTV V95 values (mean [range]) were BM: 98.74% (95.62–100%), MM: 99.79% (98.55–100%), and the IntraDose values were BM: 99.46% (98.10–100%), MM: 99.74% (98.91–100%). Although all cases were acceptable with either matching method, MM provided better values than BM. Conclusion: MM is a better positioning technique than BM for ensuring the target dose during and between fractions of CIRT. However, further analysis is required as our study included only a low number of cases.