Cargando…

Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography

INTRODUCTION: Current contouring guidelines for curative radiation therapy for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) recommend margins of 1.5–2.0 cm, applied to the clinical target volume (CTV). This study assessed whether the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), cone beam computed tomogr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dower, Kathleene, Ford, Andriana, Sandford, Michael, Doherty, Andrew, Greenham, Stuart, Kerin, Luke, Dwyer, Patrick, Hansen, Carmen, Westhuyzen, Justin, Shakespeare, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8656189/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34288566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.532
_version_ 1784612232780316672
author Dower, Kathleene
Ford, Andriana
Sandford, Michael
Doherty, Andrew
Greenham, Stuart
Kerin, Luke
Dwyer, Patrick
Hansen, Carmen
Westhuyzen, Justin
Shakespeare, Thomas
author_facet Dower, Kathleene
Ford, Andriana
Sandford, Michael
Doherty, Andrew
Greenham, Stuart
Kerin, Luke
Dwyer, Patrick
Hansen, Carmen
Westhuyzen, Justin
Shakespeare, Thomas
author_sort Dower, Kathleene
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Current contouring guidelines for curative radiation therapy for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) recommend margins of 1.5–2.0 cm, applied to the clinical target volume (CTV). This study assessed whether the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and strict bladder preparation allowed for a reduced planning target volume (PTV) expansion, resulting in lower doses to surrounding organs at risk (OARs). METHODS: Daily CBCT images for 12 patients (382 scans total) were retrospectively reviewed against four potential PTV margins created on and exported with the reference CT scan. To form the PTVs, three isotropic expansions of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 cm were applied to the CTV, as well as an anisotropic expansion of 1.5 cm superiorly and 1.0 cm in all other dimensions. Following treatment completion, the CBCTs were visually assessed to determine the margins encapsulating the bladder. For retrospective planning purposes, the 1.0‐cm and anisotropic margins were compared with the previously recommended margins to determine differences in OAR doses. RESULTS: The 0.5‐, 1.0‐ and 1.5‐cm isotropic margins (IM) and the anisotropic margin (ANIM) covered the CTV in 46.1, 96.8, 100 and 100% of CBCTs retrospectively. Doses to OARs were significantly lower for the reduced margin plans for the small bowel, rectum and sigmoid. CONCLUSION: Bladder planning target volumes may be safely reduced. We endorse a PTV margin of 1.0cm anteriorly, posteriorly and inferiorly with 1.0–1.5 cm superiorly for radical whole bladder cases using strict bladder preparation, VMAT and pretreatment CBCTs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8656189
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86561892021-12-20 Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography Dower, Kathleene Ford, Andriana Sandford, Michael Doherty, Andrew Greenham, Stuart Kerin, Luke Dwyer, Patrick Hansen, Carmen Westhuyzen, Justin Shakespeare, Thomas J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Current contouring guidelines for curative radiation therapy for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) recommend margins of 1.5–2.0 cm, applied to the clinical target volume (CTV). This study assessed whether the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and strict bladder preparation allowed for a reduced planning target volume (PTV) expansion, resulting in lower doses to surrounding organs at risk (OARs). METHODS: Daily CBCT images for 12 patients (382 scans total) were retrospectively reviewed against four potential PTV margins created on and exported with the reference CT scan. To form the PTVs, three isotropic expansions of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 cm were applied to the CTV, as well as an anisotropic expansion of 1.5 cm superiorly and 1.0 cm in all other dimensions. Following treatment completion, the CBCTs were visually assessed to determine the margins encapsulating the bladder. For retrospective planning purposes, the 1.0‐cm and anisotropic margins were compared with the previously recommended margins to determine differences in OAR doses. RESULTS: The 0.5‐, 1.0‐ and 1.5‐cm isotropic margins (IM) and the anisotropic margin (ANIM) covered the CTV in 46.1, 96.8, 100 and 100% of CBCTs retrospectively. Doses to OARs were significantly lower for the reduced margin plans for the small bowel, rectum and sigmoid. CONCLUSION: Bladder planning target volumes may be safely reduced. We endorse a PTV margin of 1.0cm anteriorly, posteriorly and inferiorly with 1.0–1.5 cm superiorly for radical whole bladder cases using strict bladder preparation, VMAT and pretreatment CBCTs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-07-20 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8656189/ /pubmed/34288566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.532 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Dower, Kathleene
Ford, Andriana
Sandford, Michael
Doherty, Andrew
Greenham, Stuart
Kerin, Luke
Dwyer, Patrick
Hansen, Carmen
Westhuyzen, Justin
Shakespeare, Thomas
Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
title Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
title_full Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
title_fullStr Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
title_short Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
title_sort retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8656189/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34288566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.532
work_keys_str_mv AT dowerkathleene retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT fordandriana retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT sandfordmichael retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT dohertyandrew retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT greenhamstuart retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT kerinluke retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT dwyerpatrick retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT hansencarmen retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT westhuyzenjustin retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography
AT shakespearethomas retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography