MV CBCT based assessment of setup uncertainties and planning target volume margin in head and neck cancer
Abstract
Background: Set-up errors are an undesirable part of the radiation treatment process. The goal of online imaging is to increase treatment accuracy by reducing the set-up errors. This study aimed to determine the daily variation of patient set-up uncertainties and planning target volume (PTV) margins for head and neck cancer patients using pre-treatment verification by mega voltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT).
Materials and methods: This retrospective study was internal record base of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy at our institution since the implementation of HalcyonTM 2.0 machine (Varian, US). Errors collected from each patient setup were recorded and evaluated for each direction [medio-lateral (ML), supero-inferior (SI), antero-posterior (AP)] discretely. For each patient, the systematic error (∑) and random error (σ) were collected. Clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was calculated using International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62 (PTV margin = ), Stroom’s (PTV margin = 2∑ + 0.7σ), and Van Herk’s (PTV margin = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ) formula.
Results: A total of 7900 pre-treatment CBCT scans of 301 patients were analyzed and a total of 23,000 error measurements in the ML, SI, and AP directions were recorded. For all of our H&N cancer patients, the CTV to PTV margin, calculated from the van Herk formula for the head and neck patients was 0.49 mm in the anteroposterior axis.
Conclusions: An isometric PTV margin of 5 mm may be considered safe if daily imaging is not being done. In case daily online pretreatment imaging is being utilized, further reduction of PTV margin is possible.
Keywords: radiotherapyplanning target volumeset up errorsimaging
References
- Ghosh G, Tallari R, Malviya A. Toxicity Profile of IMRT Vs. 3D-CRT in Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(9): XC01–XC03.
- Gupta T, Sinha S, Ghosh-Laskar S, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: long-term and mature outcomes of a prospective randomized trial. Radiat Oncol. 2020; 15(1): 218.
- Bratengeier K, Pfreundner L, Flentje M. Radiation techniques for head and neck tumors. Radiother Oncol. 2000; 56(2): 209–220.
- ICRU. ICRU report. Vol. 50. Bethesda: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1993. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy.
- International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy (Supplement to ICRU report 50). In ICRU Report, 62. Bethesda, MD: ICRU Publications, 2000.
- McKenzie A, van Herk M, Mijnheer B. Margins for geometric uncertainty around organs at risk in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2002; 62(3): 299–307.
- Stroom JC, de Boer HC, Huizenga H, et al. Inclusion of geometrical uncertainties in radiotherapy treatment planning by means of coverage probability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999; 43(4): 905–919.
- van Herk M. Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Seminars in Radiation Oncology. 2004; 14(1): 52–64.
- Gupta T, Chopra S, Kadam A, et al. Assessment of three-dimensional set-up errors in conventional head and neck radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging device. Radiat Oncol. 2007; 2: 44.
- Farajollahi A, Mohammadzadeh N, Momennezhad M, et al. Evaluation of Patient Set Up Errors in Head and Neck Three-Dimensional (3D) Conformal and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Using Electronic Portal Imaging Device. Iran J Med Phys. 2022; 19: 270–274.
- Mesko S, Wang He, Tung S, et al. Estimating PTV Margins in Head and Neck Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) Through Target Site Analysis of Positioning and Intrafractional Accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020; 106(1): 185–193.
- Hermida-López M, García-Relancio D, Comino-Muriano M, et al. Treatment time of image-guided radiotherapy with a Halcyon 2.0 system. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2023; 54(1): 117–122.
- Wang GY, Zhu QZ, Zhu HL, et al. Clinical performance evaluation of O-Ring Halcyon Linac: A real-world study. World J Clin Cases. 2022; 10(22): 7728–7737.
- Fuller CD, Scarbrough TJ, Sonke JJ, et al. Method comparison of automated matching software-assisted cone-beam CT and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray positional verification image-guided radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: a prospective analysis. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54(24): 7401–7415.
- Devereux B, Frantzis J, Sisson T, et al. A comparison of kV and MV imaging in head and neck image guided radiotherapy. Radiography. 2010; 16(1): 8–13.