Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
Cone beam CT-based adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy assessment using automated planning for head-and-neck
Yihang Xu1,2, William Jin1, Michael Butkus1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Background:
To assess the feasibility of CBCT-based adaptive intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using automated planning for treatment of head and neck (HN) cancers.
Methods:
Twenty HN cancer patients who received radiotherapy and had pretreatment CBCTs were included in this study. Initial IMPT plans were created using automated planning software for all patients. Synthetic CTs (sCT) were then created by deforming the planning CT (pCT) to the pretreatment CBCTs. To assess dose calculation accuracy on sCTs, repeat CTs (rCTs) were deformed to the pretreatment CBCT obtained on the same day to create deformed rCT (rCTdef), serving as gold standard. The dose recalculated on sCT and on rCTdef were compared by using Gamma analysis. The accuracy of DIR generated contours was also assessed. To explore the potential benefits of adaptive IMPT, two sets of plans were created for each patient, a non-adapted IMPT plan and an adapted IMPT plan calculated on weekly sCT images. The weekly doses for non-adaptive and adaptive IMPT plans were accumulated on the pCT, and the accumulated dosimetric parameters of two sets were compared.
Results:
Gamma analysis of the dose recalculated on sCT and rCTdef resulted in a passing rate of 97.9% ± 1.7% using 3 mm/3% criteria. With the physician-corrected contours on the sCT, the dose deviation range of using sCT to estimate mean dose for the most organ at risk (OARs) can be reduced to (- 2.37%, 2.19%) as compared to rCTdef, while for V95 of primary or secondary CTVs, the deviation can be controlled within (- 1.09%, 0.29%). Comparison of the accumulated doses from the adaptive planning against the non-adaptive plans reduced mean dose to constrictors (- 1.42 Gy ± 2.79 Gy) and larynx (- 2.58 Gy ± 3.09 Gy). The reductions result in statistically significant reductions in the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of larynx edema by 7.52% ± 13.59%. 4.5% of primary CTVs, 4.1% of secondary CTVs, and 26.8% tertiary CTVs didn't meet the V95 > 95% constraint on non-adapted IMPT plans. All adaptive plans were able to meet the coverage constraint.
Conclusion:
sCTs can be a useful tool for accurate proton dose calculation. Adaptive IMPT resulted in better CTV coverage, OAR sparing and lower NTCP for some OARs as compared with non-adaptive IMPT.
