Assessment of residual setup errors of clinical target volumes for head and neck radiotherapy
Kelvin Ng Wei Siang,
The Netherlands
PD-0403
Abstract
Assessment of residual setup errors of clinical target volumes for head and neck radiotherapy
Authors: Kelvin Ng Wei Siang1, Stefan Both1, Edwin Oldehinkel1, Johannes Langendijk1, Dirk Wagenaar1
1University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, The Netherlands
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
To assess the residual non-rigid setup errors due
to anatomical changes of the clinical target volumes (CTVs) after online
verification for clinical head and neck cancer (HNC) proton therapy patients.
Material and Methods
Eleven HNC patients treated with simultaneous
integrated boost – 70GyRBE and 54.25GyRBE
to the primary CTV (CTV70) and
elective CTV (CTV54.25 ),
respectively – were retrospectively analysed to determine the residual
non-rigid setup errors. Using an in-house validated deep
convolution neural network (DCNN) architecture daily cone beam CTs (CBCTs)
were converted to synthetic CTs (sCTs). The sCTs have comparable quality
to the CTs, validated against weekly verification CTs acquired during the
course of treatment. The CTV was
propagated from the original CT where planning was made to the daily sCTs using
a hybrid deformable image registration (RaySearch). These auto-propagated CTVs
(dirCTVs) were also reviewed by the HNC radiation oncologist (pCTVs) (see Figure
1). We focused here only on the region above the cricoid cartilage where the
CBCT quality is good. This ensured high quality derived sCTs for contour review.
The original CTV was first uniformly expanded
in discrete steps of 1 mm. The CTVs of the daily sCTs were co-registered and intersected with the expanded planning
CTV to determine the volume overlap. For CTV70
we determined for the patient group the interpolated shell distance
at which 95% of daily CTVs have at least 98% volume
overlap with the planning CTV + dr. The
elective CTV54.25, was examined at 95% volume
overlap with the planning CTV + dr. Both pCTVs
and dirCTVs were evaluated, and the dice similarity coefficient (DSC) were
compared.
Results
For the primary target, dr
was 1.7 mm and 1.86 mm for pCTV and dirCTV, respectively
(see Figure 2). For the elective target, dr
was 1.29 mm and 1.51
mm for pCTV and dirCTV, respectively. Furthermore, minor non relevant differences were noted for the mean DSC
for all patients between the pCTV and dirCTV for both primary and elective
targets (ΔDSCmean < 3%).
Conclusion
Smaller setup uncertainty settings of <2 mm are feasible when using online CBCT guided proton therapy with 6D
correction. A larger study cohort would be required to see if
robust planning using a 2 mm setup uncertainty setting or smaller is possible. The
feasibility of using the auto-propagated CTVs instead of physician corrected
CTVs to analyse the errors for a larger HNC patient population is further
demonstrated.