Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Optimization of treatment planning workflow and tumor coverage during daily adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT) of pancreatic cancer

Authors: Sven Olberg, Olga Green, Bin Cai, Deshan Yang, Vivian Rodriguez, Hao Zhang, Jin Sung Kim, Parag J. Parikh, Sasa Mutic, Justin C. Park

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

To simplify the adaptive treatment planning workflow while achieving the optimal tumor-dose coverage in pancreatic cancer patients undergoing daily adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT).

Methods

In daily adaptive MR-IGRT, the plan objective function constructed during simulation is used for plan re-optimization throughout the course of treatment. In this study, we have constructed the initial objective functions using two methods for 16 pancreatic cancer patients treated with the ViewRay™ MR-IGRT system: 1) the conventional method that handles the stomach, duodenum, small bowel, and large bowel as separate organs at risk (OARs) and 2) the OAR grouping method. Using OAR grouping, a combined OAR structure that encompasses the portions of these four primary OARs within 3 cm of the planning target volume (PTV) is created. OAR grouping simulation plans were optimized such that the target coverage was comparable to the clinical simulation plan constructed in the conventional manner. In both cases, the initial objective function was then applied to each successive treatment fraction and the plan was re-optimized based on the patient’s daily anatomy. OAR grouping plans were compared to conventional plans at each fraction in terms of coverage of the PTV and the optimized PTV (PTV OPT), which is the result of the subtraction of overlapping OAR volumes with an additional margin from the PTV.

Results

Plan performance was enhanced across a majority of fractions using OAR grouping. The percentage of the volume of the PTV covered by 95% of the prescribed dose (D₉₅) was improved by an average of 3.87 ± 4.29% while D₉₅ coverage of the PTV OPT increased by 3.98 ± 4.97%. Finally, D₁₀₀ coverage of the PTV demonstrated an average increase of 6.47 ± 7.16% and a maximum improvement of 20.19%.

Conclusions

In this study, our proposed OAR grouping plans generally outperformed conventional plans, especially when the conventional simulation plan favored or disregarded an OAR through the assignment of distinct weighting parameters relative to the other critical structures. OAR grouping simplifies the MR-IGRT adaptive treatment planning workflow at simulation while demonstrating improved coverage compared to delivered pancreatic cancer treatment plans in daily adaptive radiation therapy.

Fischer-Valuck B, Henke L, Green O, et al. Two-and-a-half year clinical experience with the world’s first magnetic resonance image-guided radiation therapy system. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2017.05.006.

Chen AM, Cao M, Hsu S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided reirradiation of recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017;2:167–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2017.02.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Evans PM. Anatomical imaging for radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:R151–91. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/12/R01.CrossRefPubMed

McDermott LN, Wendling M, Sonke JJ, van Herk M, Mijnheer BJ. Anatomy changes in radiotherapy detected using portal imaging. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

van Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2004;14(1):52–64. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semradonc.2003.10.003.CrossRefPubMed

Hector CL, Webb S, Evans PM. The dosimetric consequences of inter-fractional patient movement on conventional and intensity-modulated breast radiotherapy treatments. Radiother Oncol. 2000;54:57–64.CrossRefPubMed

Schwartz DL, Garden AS, Thomas J, et al. Adaptive radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: initial clinical outcomes from a prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(3):986–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.08.017.CrossRefPubMed

Ahunbay EE, Peng C, Chen GP, et al. An on-line replanning scheme for interfractional variations. Med Phys. 2008;35(8):3607–15. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2952443.CrossRefPubMed

Barker JL, Garden AS, Ang KK, et al. Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer using an integrated CT/linear accelerator system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(4):960–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.12.024.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Spoelstra FOB, Pantarotto JR, van Sörnsen de Koste JR, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Role of adaptive radiotherapy during concomitant chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer: analysis of data from a prospective clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(4):1092–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.027.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Surucu M, Shah KK, Roeske JC, Choi M, Small W, Emami B. Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: implications for clinical and dosimetry outcomes. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2017;16(2):218–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533034616662165.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Nakamura M, Shibuya K, Nakamura A, et al. Interfractional dose variations in intensity-modulated radiotherapy with breath-hold for pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(5):1619–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.01.050.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Song WY, Kamath S, Ozawa S, et al. A dose comparison study between XVI® and OBI® CBCT systems. Med Phys. 2008;35(2):480–6. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2825619.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Mutic S, Dempsey JF. The ViewRay system: magnetic resonance-guided and controlled radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014;24:196–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.02.008.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Wooten HO, Green O, Yang M, et al. Quality of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans using a ⁶⁰Co magnetic resonance image guidance radiation therapy system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92(4):771–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.057.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Craft DL, Hong TS, Shih HA, Bortfeld TR. Improved planning time and plan quality through multicriteria optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2102;82(1):e83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.12.007.CrossRef

17.

Barth NH. An inverse problem in radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;18:425–31.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Goitein M. The inverse problem. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;18:489–91.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Xing L, Chen GTY. Iterative methods for inverse treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:2107–23.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Oelfke U, Bortfeld T. Inverse planning for photon and proton beams. Med Dosim. 2001;26(2):113–24.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hamacher HW, Küfer KH. Inverse radiation therapy planning – a multiple objective optimization approach. Discret Appl Math. 2002;118:145–61.CrossRef

22.

Orton CG, Bortfeld TR, Niermierko A, Unkelback J. The role of medical physicists and the AAPM in the development of treatment planning and optimization. Med Phys. 2008;35(11):4911–23. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2990777.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Liu H, Dong P, Xing L. Using measurable dosimetric quantities to characterize the inter-structural tradeoff in inverse planning. Phys Med Biol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa6fcb.

24.

Ezzell GA, Galvin JM, Low D, et al. Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee. Med Phys. 2003;30(8):2089–115. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1591194.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Xing L, Li JG, Donaldson S, Le QT, Boyer AL. Optimization of importance factors in inverse planning. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:2525–36.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bortfeld T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R363–79. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R21.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Wu Q, Djajaputra D, Wu Y, Zhou J, Liu HH, Mohan R. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy optimization with gEUD-guided dose-volume objectives. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:279–91.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Prior P, Chen X, Botros M, et al. MRI-based IMRT planning for MR-linac: comparison between CT- and MRI-based plans for pancreatic and prostate cancers. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:3819–42. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/10/3819.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Heerkens HD, Hall WA, Li XA, et al. Recommendations for MRI-based contouring of gross tumor volume and organs at risk for radiation therapy of pancreatic cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017;7:126–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2016.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Optimization of treatment planning workflow and tumor coverage during daily adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT) of pancreatic cancer
Authors: Sven Olberg
Olga Green
Bin Cai
Deshan Yang
Vivian Rodriguez
Hao Zhang
Jin Sung Kim
Parag J. Parikh
Sasa Mutic
Justin C. Park
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1000-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Optimization of treatment planning workflow and tumor coverage during daily adaptive magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT) of pancreatic cancer

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Radiation oncology resident training in patient safety and quality improvement: a national survey of residency program directors

Tangent-based volumetric modulated arc therapy for advanced left breast cancer

Transportable system enabling multiple irradiation studies under simultaneous hypoxia in vitro

Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility

Feasibility of ipsilateral lower neck sparing irradiation for unilateral or bilateral neck node-negative nasopharyngeal carcinoma: systemic review and meta-analysis of 2, 521 patients

Auto- versus human-driven plan in mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma radiation treatment