Cargando…

Skin dose calculation during radiotherapy of head and neck cancer using deformable image registration of planning and mega-voltage computed tomography scans

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Head-Neck (HN) patients may experience severe acute skin complications that can cause treatment interruption and increase the risk of late fibrosis. This study assessed a method for accurately monitoring skin dose changes during helical tomotherapy for HN cancer based on defo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Branchini, Marco, Broggi, Sara, Dell'Oca, Italo, Cattaneo, Giovanni Mauro, Calandrino, Riccardo, Di Muzio, Nadia Gisella, Fiorino, Claudio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33458416
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.11.008
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Head-Neck (HN) patients may experience severe acute skin complications that can cause treatment interruption and increase the risk of late fibrosis. This study assessed a method for accurately monitoring skin dose changes during helical tomotherapy for HN cancer based on deformable image registration of planning computed tomography (CT) and mega-voltage CT (MVCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Planning CTs of nine patients were deformably registered to mid-treatment MVCT (MV15) images resulting in CTdef images. The original plans were recalculated on both CTdef and mid-treatment kilo-voltage CT (CT15) taken as ground truth. Superficial layers (SL) of the body with thicknesses of 2, 3 and 5 mm (SL2, SL3, SL5) were considered as derma surrogates. SL V95%, V97%, V98%, V100%, V102%, V105% and V107% of the prescribed PTV dose were extracted for CT15/CTdef and compared (considering patients with skin dose > 95%). For comparison, doses were calculated directly on the calibrated MVCT and analyzed in the same way. RESULTS: Differences between SL2/SL3/SL5 V95%-V107% in CT15/CTdef were very small: for eight of nine patients the difference between the considered SL2 Vd% computed on CTdef and CT15 was less than 1.4 cm(3) for all d%. A larger value was found when using MVCT for skin dose calculation (4.8 cm(3) for SL2), although CTdef body contour matched CT15 body with accuracy similar to that of MV15. CONCLUSIONS: Deforming the planning CT-to-MVCT was shown to be accurate considering external body contours and skin DVHs. The method was able to accurately identify superficial overdosing.