Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA; ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jun;159:39-47. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.03.008. Epub 2021 Mar 17.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Setup variations and anatomical changes can severely affect the quality of head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments. The impact of these changes can be alleviated by increasing the plan's robustness a priori, or by adapting the plan online. This work compares these approaches in the context of head and neck IMPT.
MATERIALS/METHODS: A representative cohort of 10 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was evaluated. For each patient, three IMPT plans were created: 1- a classical robust optimization (cRO) plan optimized on the planning CT, 2- an anatomical robust optimization (aRO) plan additionally including the two first daily CBCTs and 3- a plan optimized without robustness constraints, but online-adapted (OA) daily, using a constrained spot intensity re-optimization technique only.
The cumulative dose following OA fulfilled the clinical objective of both the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) coverage in all 10 patients, compared to 8 for aRO and 4 for cRO. aRO did not significantly increase the dose to most organs at risk compared to cRO, although the integral dose was higher. OA significantly reduced the integral dose to healthy tissues compared to both robust methods, while providing equivalent or superior target coverage.
Using a simple spot intensity re-optimization, daily OA can achieve superior target coverage and lower dose to organs at risk than robust optimization methods.
背景/目的:设置变化和解剖结构变化会严重影响头颈部强度调制质子治疗(IMPT)的质量。可以通过事先增加计划的稳健性或在线调整计划来减轻这些变化的影响。本研究在头颈部 IMPT 的背景下比较了这两种方法。
材料/方法:评估了 10 例头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HNSCC)患者的每日锥形束 CT(CBCT)的代表性队列。对于每个患者,创建了三个 IMPT 计划:1-经典稳健优化(cRO)计划,在计划 CT 上进行优化;2-解剖稳健优化(aRO)计划,另外包括前两个每日 CBCT;3-无稳健性约束的计划,但在线适应(OA),仅使用受约束的点强度重新优化技术。
OA 方案下的累积剂量满足了高风险和低风险临床靶区(CTV)覆盖的临床目标,10 例患者中均达到 100%,而 aRO 为 80%,cRO 为 40%。与 cRO 相比,aRO 并未显著增加大多数危及器官的剂量,尽管积分剂量更高。OA 与两种稳健方法相比,显著降低了健康组织的积分剂量,同时提供了等效或更好的靶区覆盖。
使用简单的点强度重新优化,每日 OA 可以实现比稳健优化方法更好的靶区覆盖和危及器官剂量降低。