Dosimetric Evaluation of Incorporating Patient Geometric Variations Into Adaptive Plan Optimization Through Probabilistic Treatment Planning in Head and Neck Cancers.

PURPOSE

Four-dimensional (4D) adaptive radiation therapy (ART) treatment planning is an alternative to the conventional margin-based treatment planning approach. In 4D ART, interfraction patient geometric variations, gathered from computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT (CBCT) images acquired during the patient treatment course, are directly incorporated into the adaptive plan optimization using a probabilistic treatment planning method. The goal of the present planning study was to evaluate the dosimetric differences between 4D ART and conventional margin-based adaptive planning strategies for head and neck cancers. In addition, we examined whether the dose differences achieved with 4D ART would translate into clinically relevant toxicity reductions using the existing normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

For 18 head and neck cancer patients, the treatment plans were retrospectively generated for 4 different treatment strategies, including a solely image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) strategy (IGRT-only), 2 conventional adaptive treatment planning strategies using 3- and 0-mm planning target volume (PTV) margins, and the 4D ART strategy. In the IGRT-only strategy, a conventional 3-mm PTV margin treatment plan was applied for the entire treatment course. In the 2 conventional adaptive strategies, 2 new treatment plans were generated during the treatment course using diagnostic planning CT scans acquired after the 10th and 22nd fractions. The 4D ART followed the same adaptive schedule, except that the 4D adaptive plan was generated using 5 CBCT images acquired during the 5 most recent treatment fractions. For each strategy, the actual delivered dose for the entire treatment course was constructed by calculating the daily doses on 35 CBCT scans, deforming back to the pretreatment planning CT scan, and accumulating over all 35 fractions. The target coverage was evaluated using the percentage of target volume receiving ≥100% of the prescription dose (V) and the minimum dose to 99% of the target volume (D). It was considered adequate if the V was ≥95% and the dose deficit in D was ≤2 Gy (with respect to the prescription dose). For each strategy, the dose received by the organs at risk (OARs) was also evaluated, and the corresponding NTCP values were subsequently calculated using 3 NTCP models.

RESULTS

Adequate target coverage was achieved for the primary clinical target volume (CTV1) and elective nodal CTV (CTV2) with a 3-mm PTV margin, regardless of adaptation. The 3-mm ART plan reduced the OAR mean dose by 1 to 2 Gy compared with the IGRT-only plan. The 0-mm ART plan further reduced the OAR dose by another 2 to 3 Gy at the expense of target coverage: 3 and 1 patient had V <95%, and 6 and 5 patients had a >2 Gy dose deficit in D for the CTV1 and CTV2, respectively. Use of 4D ART improved target coverage and attained OAR sparing similar to that with 0-mm ART. The number of patients with V <95% and >2 Gy D deficit decreased to 0 and 0 for CTV1 and 0 and 2 for CTV2, respectively. The NTCP calculations suggested that 4D ART could benefit a substantial portion of patients compared with IGRT-only because 17 and 12 patients had ≥5% and ≥10% NTCP reductions for parotid toxicity and 18 and 3 patients had ≥5% and ≥10% NTCP reductions for swallowing toxicity, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with margin-based adaptive planning strategies, 4D ART provides a better balance between target coverage and OAR sparing. NTCP estimation predicted for theoretical clinical benefits that warrant further clinical validation.