Cargando…

Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Appropriate internal margins are essential to avoid a geographical miss in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for endometrial cancer (EC). This study evaluated interfraction target motion using rigid and non-rigid approximation strategies and calculated internal mar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: White, Ingrid, McQuaid, Dualta, McNair, Helen, Dunlop, Alex, Court, Steven, Hopkins, Naomi, Thomas, Karen, Dearnaley, David, Bhide, Shree, Lalondrelle, Susan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33458433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2019.02.005
_version_ 1783636783773253632
author White, Ingrid
McQuaid, Dualta
McNair, Helen
Dunlop, Alex
Court, Steven
Hopkins, Naomi
Thomas, Karen
Dearnaley, David
Bhide, Shree
Lalondrelle, Susan
author_facet White, Ingrid
McQuaid, Dualta
McNair, Helen
Dunlop, Alex
Court, Steven
Hopkins, Naomi
Thomas, Karen
Dearnaley, David
Bhide, Shree
Lalondrelle, Susan
author_sort White, Ingrid
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Appropriate internal margins are essential to avoid a geographical miss in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for endometrial cancer (EC). This study evaluated interfraction target motion using rigid and non-rigid approximation strategies and calculated internal margins based on random and systematic errors using traditional rigid margin recipes. Dosimetric impact of target motion was also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cone beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired days 1–4 and then weekly in 17 patients receiving adjuvant IMRT for EC; a total of 169 CBCTs were analysed. Interfraction motion for the clinical target volume vaginal vault and upper vagina (CTVv) was measured using bony landmarks and deformation vector field displacement (DVFD) within a 1 mm internal wall of CTVv. Patient and population systematic and random errors were estimated and margins calculated. Delivered dose to the CTVv and organs at risk was estimated. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in target motion assessment using the different registration strategies (p < 0.05). DVFD up to 30 mm occurred in the anterior/posterior direction, which was not accounted for in PTV margins using rigid margin recipes. Underdosing of CTVv D95% occurred in three patients who had substantial reductions in rectal volume (RV) during treatment. RV relative to the planning CT was moderately correlated with anterior/posterior displacement (r = 0.6) and mean relative RV during treatment was strongly correlated with mean relative RV at CBCT acquired days 1–3 (r = 0.8). CONCLUSION: Complex and extensive geometric changes occur to the CTVv, which are not accounted for in margin recipes using rigid approximation. Contemporary margin recipes and adaptive treatment planning based on non-rigid approximation are recommended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7807633
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78076332021-01-14 Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy White, Ingrid McQuaid, Dualta McNair, Helen Dunlop, Alex Court, Steven Hopkins, Naomi Thomas, Karen Dearnaley, David Bhide, Shree Lalondrelle, Susan Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Original Research Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Appropriate internal margins are essential to avoid a geographical miss in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for endometrial cancer (EC). This study evaluated interfraction target motion using rigid and non-rigid approximation strategies and calculated internal margins based on random and systematic errors using traditional rigid margin recipes. Dosimetric impact of target motion was also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cone beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired days 1–4 and then weekly in 17 patients receiving adjuvant IMRT for EC; a total of 169 CBCTs were analysed. Interfraction motion for the clinical target volume vaginal vault and upper vagina (CTVv) was measured using bony landmarks and deformation vector field displacement (DVFD) within a 1 mm internal wall of CTVv. Patient and population systematic and random errors were estimated and margins calculated. Delivered dose to the CTVv and organs at risk was estimated. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in target motion assessment using the different registration strategies (p < 0.05). DVFD up to 30 mm occurred in the anterior/posterior direction, which was not accounted for in PTV margins using rigid margin recipes. Underdosing of CTVv D95% occurred in three patients who had substantial reductions in rectal volume (RV) during treatment. RV relative to the planning CT was moderately correlated with anterior/posterior displacement (r = 0.6) and mean relative RV during treatment was strongly correlated with mean relative RV at CBCT acquired days 1–3 (r = 0.8). CONCLUSION: Complex and extensive geometric changes occur to the CTVv, which are not accounted for in margin recipes using rigid approximation. Contemporary margin recipes and adaptive treatment planning based on non-rigid approximation are recommended. Elsevier 2019-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7807633/ /pubmed/33458433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2019.02.005 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
White, Ingrid
McQuaid, Dualta
McNair, Helen
Dunlop, Alex
Court, Steven
Hopkins, Naomi
Thomas, Karen
Dearnaley, David
Bhide, Shree
Lalondrelle, Susan
Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy
title Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy
title_full Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy
title_fullStr Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy
title_short Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy
title_sort geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33458433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2019.02.005
work_keys_str_mv AT whiteingrid geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT mcquaiddualta geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT mcnairhelen geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT dunlopalex geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT courtsteven geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT hopkinsnaomi geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT thomaskaren geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT dearnaleydavid geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT bhideshree geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy
AT lalondrellesusan geometricanddosimetricevaluationofthedifferencesbetweenrigidanddeformableregistrationtoassessinterfractionmotionduringpelvicradiotherapy