Bone versus soft-tissue setup in proton therapy for patients with oesophageal cancer

Authors

  • Muhammad Shamshad Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Ditte Sloth Møller Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Hanna Rahbek Mortensen Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Mai Lykkegaard Ehmsen Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Maria Fuglsang Jensen Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Lone Hoffmann Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark;c Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2022.2091949

Keywords:

Oesophageal proton plan, anatomical changes, image registration

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of patient positioning based on either bone or soft-tissue matching for PT in oesophageal cancer and its impact on plan adaptation.

Materials and methods

Two retrospective patient cohorts treated with radiotherapy were included in the study. Cohort A consisted of 26 consecutive patients with a planning 4DCT scan (CT1) and a surveillance 4DCT scan (CT2) at fraction ten. Cohort B consisted of 17 patients selected based on large anatomical changes identified during treatment resulting in a rescan (CT2). Mean dose to the iCTV (sum of the CTVs in all respiratory phases) was 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions or 41.4 Gy (RBE) in 23 fractions. A nominal pencil beam scanning plan was created using two posterior beams and robust optimization (5 mm setup, 3.5% range). For each patient, two rigid registrations were made between average (avg) CT1 and CT2: a match on the vertebral column (bone match) and a match on the iCTV (soft-tissue match). Robustness towards setup (5 mm) and range (3.5%) errors was evaluated at CT2. Robustness towards respiration was evaluated by recalculation of the plan on all phases of the CT2 scan. Dose coverage <96% would trigger adaptation. The statistical significance (p-value <0.05) between dose coverage for the two registration methods was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

All plans fulfilled V95%iCTV>99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTV>97% for all respiratory phases and robustness scenarios at CT1. In two (8%) and three (18%) patients, V95%iCTV<96% on CT2 for Cohort A and B, respectively when bone match was used. For soft-tissue match, V95%iCTV >96% for all patients. V95%iCTV was significantly higher (p-value = 0.0001) for soft-tissue match than bone match.

Conclusion

Anatomical changes during the treatment course led to target dose deterioration and a need for plan adaptation when using a bone match.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2022-08-03

How to Cite

Shamshad, M., Sloth Møller, D., Rahbek Mortensen, H., Ehmsen, M. L. ., Fuglsang Jensen, M., & Hoffmann, L. (2022). Bone versus soft-tissue setup in proton therapy for patients with oesophageal cancer. Acta Oncologica, 61(8), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2022.2091949