Robust treatment planning in scanned carbon-ion radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: Clinical verification using in-room computed tomography images
Yohsuke Kusano,Hiroyuki Katoh,Shinichi Minohara,Hajime Fujii,Yuya Miyasaka,Yoshiki Takayama,Koh Imura,Terufumi Kusunoki,Shin Miyakawa,Tadashi Kamada,Itsuko Serizawa,Yosuke Takakusagi,Nobutaka Mizoguchi,Keisuke Tsuchida,Daisaku Yoshida
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.974728
IF: 4.7
2022-08-30
Frontiers in Oncology
Abstract:Purpose: Carbon-ion beam (C-beam) has a sharp dose distribution called the Bragg peak. Carbon-ion radiation therapy, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy in photon radiotherapy, can be completed in a short period by concentrating the radiation dose on the tumor while minimizing the dose to organs at-risk. However, the stopping position of C-beam is sensitive to density variations along the beam path and such variations can lower the tumor dose as well as cause the delivery of an unexpectedly high dose to the organs at risk. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of a robust planning technique considering gastrointestinal gas (G-gas) to deliver accurate radiation doses in carbon-ion radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Materials and methods: We focused on the computed tomography (CT) value replacement method. Replacement signifies the overwriting of CT values in the CT images. The most effective replacement method for robust treatment planning was determined by verifying the effects of the three replacement patterns. We selected 10 consecutive patients. Pattern 1 replaces the CT value of the G-gas contours with the value of the region without G-gas (P1). This condition indicates a no-gas state. Pattern 2 replaces each gastrointestinal contour using the mean CT value of each contour (P2). The effect of G-gas was included in the replacement value. Pattern 3 indicates no replacement (P3). We analyzed variations in the target coverage (TC) and homogeneity index (HI) from the initial plan using in-room CT images. We then performed correlation analysis on the variations in G-gas, TC, and HI to evaluate the robustness against G-gas. Results: Analysis of variations in TC and HI revealed a significant difference between P1 and P3 and between P2 and P3. Although no statistically significant difference was observed between P1 and P2, variations, including the median, tended to be fewer in P2. The correlation analyses for G-gas, TC, and HI showed that P2 was less likely to be affected by G-gas. Conclusion: For a treatment plan that is robust to G-gas, P2 mean replacement method should be used. This method does not necessitate any particular software or equipment, and is convenient to implement in clinical practice.
oncology