Wyniki wyszukiwania - BazTech

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: head and neck cancer

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Evaluating the impact of anatomical changes on dose distributions in head and neck cancer

Sobajtis Aleksandra, Kukołowicz Paweł, Iwanowska-Chomiak Beata

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

2023

Vol. 29, Iss. 3

156--164

Introduction: Thanks to modern IGRT procedures, it is possible to track changes in the patient's anatomy and thus calculate the dose distribution for the current anatomical conditions of the patient. This allows the scheduled dose to be compared with the delivered dose. In the case of large discrepancies, it is possible to improve the treatment plan. Radiotherapy, during which the treatment plan is modified, resulting from changes in anatomy, is referred to as adaptive radiotherapy. Material and methods: This study was performed for 30 patients with H&N cancer at the University Hospital in Zielona Góra. All patients were treated with VMAT. The Simultaneous Integrated Technique was used. In each treatment session, set-up verification was performed. Alternating every other day, the CBCT and two orthogonal portal images were made, and position correction prior to each session was performed. For all patients, new planning CT was made after the 11th and 22nd treatment sessions. Dose distributions with the initial plan on CT11 and CT22 were calculated. The initial dose-volume histograms DVH0 were compared with dose-volume histograms DVH11 and DVH22 calculated on CT11 and CT22. Results: We compared the dose distribution in the CTVs and in the most important organs at risk obtained for initial anatomy and dose distributions calculated with the initial plan on the CTs performed after the second and the fourth week of irradiation. The differences between mean doses and V95% to GTV obtained for the initial CT and two other CTs were small. For a few CTs, the values of V95% were smaller by more than 5% points. In most patients, the mean dose in salivary glands increased during treatment. Conclusions: Anatomical changes occurring during radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancers have little influence on the dose deposited in the Clinical Target Volume. Adaptive therapy may be of particular importance if relapse occurs and re-irradiation.

Evaluation and risk factors of volume and dose differences of selected structures in patients with head and neck cancer treated on Helical TomoTherapy by using Deformable Image Registration tool

Bąk Bartosz, Skrobała Agnieszka, Adamska Anna, Józefacka Natalia, Styś Sara, Malicki Julian

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

2022

Vol. 28, Iss. 2

60--68

Introduction: The aim of this study was the evaluation of volume and dose differences in selected structures in patients with head and neck cancer during treatment on Helical TomoTherapy (HT) using a commercially available deformable image registration (DIR) tool. We attempted to identify anatomical and clinical predictive factors for significant volume changes probability. Material and methods: According to our institutional protocol, we retrospectively evaluated the group of 20 H&N cancer patients treated with HT who received Adaptive Radiotherapy (ART) due to soft tissue alterations spotted on daily MVCT. We compared volumes on initial computed tomography (iCT) and replanning computed tomography (rCT) for clinical target volumes (CTV) – CTV1 (the primary tumor) and CTV2 (metastatic lymph nodes), parotid glands (PG) and body contour (B-body). To estimate the planned and delivered dose discrepancy, the dose from the original plan was registered and deformed to create a simulation of dose distribution on rCT (DIR-rCT). Results: The decision to replan was made at the 4th week of RT (N = 6; 30%). The average volume reduction in parotid right PG[R] and left PG[L] was 4.37 cc (18.9%) (p < 0.001) and 3.77 cc (16.8%) (p = 0.004), respectively. In N = 13/20 cases, the delivered dose was greater than the planned dose for PG[R] of mean 3 Gy (p < 0.001), and in N = 6/20 patients for PG[L] the mean of 3.6 Gy (p = 0.031). Multivariate regression analysis showed a very strong predictor explaining 88% (R2 = 0.88) and 83% (R2 = 0.83) of the variance based on the mean dose of iPG[R] and iPG[L] (p < 0.001), respectively. No statistically significant correlation between volume changes and risk factors was found. Conclusions: Dosimetric changes to the target demonstrated the validity of replanning. A DIR tool can be successfully used for dose deformation and ART qualification, significantly reducing the workload of radiotherapy centers. In addition, the mean dose for PG was a significant predictor that may indicate the need for a replan.