Dose summation and image registration strategies for radiobiologically and anatomically corrected dose accumulation in pelvic re-irradiation. (2nd January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nix, Mike; Gregory, Stephen; Aldred, Michael; Aspin, Lynn; Lilley, John; Al-Qaisieh, Bashar; Uzan, Julien; Svensson, Stina; Dickinson, Peter; Appelt, Ane L.; Murray, Louise
• Is Part Of: Acta oncologica. Volume 61:Number 1(2022)
• Page Start: 64
• Page End: 72
• Publication Date: 2022-01-02
• Subjects: Reirradiation; deformable image registration; EQD2; dose summation; personalisation; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.992
• DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2021.1982145
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0284-186X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Re-irradiation (reRT) is a promising technique for patients with localized recurrence in a previously irradiated area but presents major challenges. These include how to deal with anatomical change between two courses of radiotherapy and integration of radiobiology when summating original and re-irradiation doses. The Support Tool for Re-Irradiation Decisions guided by Radiobiology (STRIDeR) project aims to develop a software tool for use in a commercial treatment planning system to facilitate more informed reRT by accounting for anatomical changes and incorporating radiobiology. We evaluated three approaches to dose summation, incorporating anatomical change and radiobiology to differing extents. Methods: In a cohort of 21 patients who previously received pelvic re-irradiation the following dose summation strategies were compared: (1) Rigid registration (RIR) and physical dose summation, to reflect the current clinical approach, (2) RIR and radiobiological dose summation in equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), and (3) Patient-specific deformable image registration (DIR) with EQD2 dose summation. Results: RIR and physical dose summation (Strategy 1) resulted in high cumulative organ at risk (OAR) doses being 'missed' in 14% of cases, which were highlighted by EQD2 dose summation (Strategy 2). DIR (with EQD2 dose summation; Strategy 3) resulted in improved OAR overlap and distance to agreement metrics compared to RIR (with EQD2 dose summation; Strategy 2) and was consistently preferred in terms of clinical utility. DIR was considered to have a clinically important impact on dose summation in 38% of cases. Conclusion: Re-irradiation cases require individualized assessment when considering dose summation with the previous treatment plan. Fractionation correction is necessary to meaningfully assess cumulative doses and reduce the risk of unintentional OAR overdose. DIR can add clinically relevant information in selected cases, especially for significant anatomical change. Robust solutions for cumulative dose assessment offer the potential for future improved understanding of cumulative OAR tolerances.