Loebner, Hannes A; Bertholet, Jenny; Mackeprang, Paul-Henry; Volken, Werner; Elicin, Olgun; Mueller, Silvan; Guyer, Gian; Aebersold, Daniel M; Stampanoni, Marco F M; Fix, Michael K; Manser, Peter (2024). Robustness analysis of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancer. Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 30(100586) Elsevier 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100586
|
Text
1-s2.0-S2405631624000563-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND). Download (12MB) | Preview |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) has been shown to improve healthy tissue sparing compared to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). This study aimed to assess and compare the robustness of DTRT and VMAT treatment-plans for head and neck (H&N) cancer to patient-setup (PS) and machine-positioning uncertainties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The robustness of DTRT and VMAT plans previously created for 46 H&N cases, prescribed 50-70 Gy to 95 % of the planning-target-volume, was assessed. For this purpose, dose distributions were recalculated using Monte Carlo, including uncertainties in PS (translation and rotation) and machine-positioning (gantry-, table-, collimator-rotation and multi-leaf collimator (MLC)). Plan robustness was evaluated by the uncertainties' impact on normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for xerostomia and dysphagia and on dose-volume endpoints. Differences between DTRT and VMAT plan robustness were compared using Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test ( = 5 %).
RESULTS
Average NTCP for moderate-to-severe xerostomia and grade ≥ II dysphagia was lower for DTRT than VMAT in the nominal scenario (0.5 %, p = 0.01; 2.1 %, p < 0.01) and for all investigated uncertainties, except MLC positioning, where the difference was not significant. Average differences compared to the nominal scenario were 3.5 Gy for rotational PS ( 3°) and machine-positioning ( 2°) uncertainties, <7 Gy for translational PS uncertainties ( 5 mm) and < 20 Gy for MLC-positioning uncertainties ( 5 mm).
CONCLUSIONS
DTRT and VMAT plan robustness to the investigated uncertainties depended on uncertainty direction and location of the structure-of-interest to the target. NTCP remained on average lower for DTRT than VMAT even when considering uncertainties.
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit item |