Onboard cone‐beam CT‐based replan evaluation for head and neck proton therapy. Issue 5 (7th February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stanforth, Alexander; Lin, Liyong; Beitler, Jonathan J.; Janopaul‐Naylor, James R.; Chang, Chih‐Wei; Press, Robert H.; Patel, Sagar A.; Zhao, Jennifer; Eaton, Bree; Schreibmann, Eduard E.; Jung, James; Bohannon, Duncan; Liu, Tian; Yang, Xiaofeng; McDonald, Mark W.; Zhou, Jun
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-02-07
• Subjects: adaptive proton therapy -- CBCT -- deformable registration -- ROC; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13550
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Quality assurance computed tomography (QACT) is the current clinical practice in proton therapy to evaluate the needs for replan. QACT could falsely indicate replan because of setup issues that would be solved on the treatment machine. Deforming the treatment planning CT (TPCT) to the pretreatment CBCT may eliminate this issue. We investigated the performance of replan evaluation based on deformed TPCT (TPCTdir) for proton head and neck (H&N) therapy. Methods and materials: Twenty‐eight H&N datasets along with pretreatment CBCT and QACT were used to validate the method. The changes in body volume were analyzed between the no‐replan and replan groups. The dose on the TPCTdir, the deformed QACT (QACTdir), and the QACT were calculated by applying the clinical plans to these image sets. Dosimetric parameters' changes, including ΔD95, ΔDmean, and ΔD1 for the clinical target volumes (CTVs) were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves for replan evaluation based on ΔD95 on QACT and TPCTdir were calculated, using ΔD95 on QACTdir as the reference. A threshold for replan based on ΔD95 on TPCTdir is proposed. The specificities for the proposed method were calculated. Results: The changes in the body contour were 95.8 ± 83.8 cc versus 305.0 ± 235.0 cc ( p < 0.01) for the no‐replan and replan groups, respectively. The ΔD95, ΔDmean, and ΔD1 are all comparable for all the evaluations. The differences between TPCTdir and QACTdir evaluations were 0.30% ± 0.86%, 0.00 ± 0.22 Gy, and −0.17 ± 0.61 Gy for CTV ΔD95, ΔDmean, and ΔD1, respectively. The corresponding differences between the QACT and QACTdir were 0.12% ± 1.1%, 0.02 ± 0.32 Gy, and −0.01 ± 0.71 Gy. CTV ΔD95 > 2.6% in TPCTdir was chosen as the threshold to trigger QACT/replan. The corresponding specificity was 94% and 98% for the clinical practice and the proposed method, respectively. Conclusions: The replan evaluation based on TPCTdir provides better specificity than that based on the QACT.