Vol 27, No 2 (2022)
Technical note
Published online: 2022-03-10

open access

Page views 4845
Article views/downloads 368
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Evaluation of target volume and dose accuracy in intrafractional cases of lung cancer based on 4D-CT and 4D-CBCT images using an in-house dynamic thorax phantom

Firyal Dhiyaul Haqqi1, Arief Sudarmaji1, Wahyu Edy Wibowo2, Nuruddin Nasution2, Handoko Handoko2, Annisa Rahma Fauzia2, Jihadil Qudsi3, Supriyanto Ardjo Pawiro1
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2022;27(2):360-370.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the target volume and dose accuracy in intrafraction cases using 4-dimensional imaging modalities and an in-house dynamic thorax phantom.

Intrafraction motion can create errors in the definition of target volumes, which can significantly affect the accuracy of radiation delivery. Motion management using 4-dimensional modalities is required to reduce the risk.

Materials and methods: Two variations in both breathing amplitude and target size were applied in this study. From these variations, internal target volume (ITVs) contoured in 10 phases of 4D-CT (ITV10), average intensity projection (AIP), and mid-ventilation (Mid-V) images were reconstructed from all 4D-CT datasets as reference images. Free-breathing (FB), augmentation free-breathing (Aug-FB), and static images were also acquired using the 3D-CT protocol for comparisons. In dose evaluations, the 4D-CBCT modality was applied before irradiation to obtain position correction. Then, the dose was evaluated with Gafchromic film EBT3.

Results: The ITV10, AIP, and Mid-V provide GTVs that match the static GTV. The AIP and Mid-V reference images allowed reductions in ITVs and PTVs without reducing the range of target movement areas compared to FB and Aug-FB images with varying percentages in the range of 29.17% to 48.70%. In the dose evaluation, the largest discrepancies between the measured and planned doses were 10.39% for the FB images and 9.21% for the Aug-FB images.

Conclusion: The 4D-CT modality can enable accurate definition of the target volume and reduce the PTV. Furthermore, 4D-CBCT provides localization images during registration to facilitate position correction and accurate dose delivery.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Stevens CW, Munden RF, Forster KM, et al. Respiratory-driven lung tumor motion is independent of tumor size, tumor location, and pulmonary function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 51(1): 62–68.
  2. Huang CY, Tehrani JN, Ng JA, et al. Six degrees-of-freedom prostate and lung tumor motion measurements using kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 91(2): 368–375.
  3. Sweeney RA, Seubert B, Stark S, et al. Accuracy and inter-observer variability of 3D versus 4D cone-beam CT based image-guidance in SBRT for lung tumors. Radiat Oncol. 2012; 7: 81.
  4. Landberg T, Chavaudra J, Dobbs J, et al. Report 62. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 2016; os32(1).
  5. Khamfongkhruea C, Thongsawad S, Tannanonta C, et al. Comparison of CT images with average intensity projection, free breathing, and mid-ventilation for dose calculation in lung cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18(2): 26–36.
  6. Richter A, Wilbert J, Baier K, et al. Feasibility study for markerless tracking of lung tumors in stereotactic body radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 78(2): 618–627.
  7. Korreman S, Persson G, Nygaard D, et al. Respiration-correlated image guidance is the most important radiotherapy motion management strategy for most lung cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83(4): 1338–1343.
  8. Allen AM, Siracuse KM, Hayman JA, et al. Evaluation of the influence of breathing on the movement and modeling of lung tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 58(4): 1251–1257.
  9. Nakamura M, Narita Y, Matsuo Y, et al. Geometrical differences in target volumes between slow CT and 4D CT imaging in stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung tumors in the upper and middle lobe. Med Phys. 2008; 35(9): 4142–4148.
  10. Thomas SJ, Evans BJ, Harihar L, et al. An evaluation of the mid-ventilation method for the planning of stereotactic lung plans. Radiother Oncol. 2019; 137: 110–116.
  11. Huang L, Park K, Boike T, et al. A study on the dosimetric accuracy of treatment planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung cancer using average and maximum intensity projection images. Radiother Oncol. 2010; 96(1): 48–54.
  12. Hugo GD, Liang J, Campbell J, et al. On-line target position localization in the presence of respiration: a comparison of two methods. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 69(5): 1634–1641.
  13. Shin HJ, Kim SW, Kay C, et al. Evaluation of the Elekta Symmetry™ 4D IGRT system by using a moving lung phantom. Journal of the Korean Physical Society. 2015; 67(1): 260–263.
  14. Yin FF, Wong J, Balter J, et al. The Role of In-Room kV X-Ray Imaging for Patient Setup and Target Localization. Report of AAPM Task Group 104. Data Management. 2009.
  15. Mohatt DJ, Keim JM, Greene MC, et al. An investigation into the range dependence of target delineation strategies for stereotactic lung radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2017; 12(1): 166.
  16. Dai Z, Zhang H, Xie Y, et al. Validation of Geometric and Dosimetric Accuracy of Edge Accelerator Gating With Electromagnetic Tracking: A Phantom Study. IEEE Access. 2019; 7: 127693–127702.
  17. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. In: Billett HH. ed. Anesthesiology 3rd ed. 1967 .
  18. Borm KJ, Oechsner M, Wiegandt M, et al. Moving targets in 4D-CTs versus MIP and AIP: comparison of patients data to phantom data. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1): 760.
  19. Ehrbar S, Jöhl A, Tartas A, et al. ITV, mid-ventilation, gating or couch tracking - A comparison of respiratory motion-management techniques based on 4D dose calculations. Radiother Oncol. 2017; 124(1): 80–88.
  20. Mutter RW, Liu F, Abreu A, et al. Dose-volume parameters predict for the development of chest wall pain after stereotactic body radiation for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82(5): 1783–1790.
  21. Ong CL, Dahele M, Slotman BJ, et al. Dosimetric impact of the interplay effect during stereotactic lung radiation therapy delivery using flattening filter-free beams and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86(4): 743–748.
  22. Peulen H, Belderbos J, Rossi M, et al. Mid-ventilation based PTV margins in Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT): a clinical evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2014; 110(3): 511–516.
  23. Li J, Harrison A, Yu Y, et al. Evaluation of Elekta 4D cone beam CT-based automatic image registration for radiation treatment of lung cancer. Br J Radiol. 2015; 88(1053): 20140620.
  24. Court LE, Wagar M, Ionascu D, et al. Management of the interplay effect when using dynamic MLC sequences to treat moving targets. Med Phys. 2008; 35(5): 1926–1931.
  25. Court L, Wagar M, Bogdanov M, et al. Use of reduced dose rate when treating moving tumors using dynamic IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010; 12(1): 3276.
  26. Smith AG, Serago C, Hintenlang K, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of the interplay effect for non-respiratory-gated VMAT treatment of moving targets with high dose rate FFF beams. IFMBE Proceedings. 2015: 444–447.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy