title: Expected clinical impact of the differences between planned and delivered dose distributions in helical tomotherapy for treating head and neck cancer using helical megavoltage CT images.
abstract: Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has become increasingly popular over the past few years. However, its clinical efficacy and effectiveness continues to be investigated. Pre-treatment patient repositioning in highly conformal image-guided radiation therapy modalities is a prerequisite for reducing setup uncertainties. A MVCT image set has to be acquired to account for daily changes in the patient's internal anatomy and setup position. Furthermore, a comparison should be performed to the kVCT study used for dosimetric planning, by a registration process which results in repositioning the patient according to specific transitional and rotational shifts. Different image registration techniques may lead to different repositioning of the patient and, as a result, to varying delivered doses. This study aims to investigate the expected effect of patient setup correction using the Hi-Art tomotherapy system by employing radiobiological measures such as the biologically effective uniform dose (BEUD) and the complication-free tumor control probability (P+). In this study, a typical case of lung cancer with metastatic head & neck disease was investigated by developing a Helical Tomotherapy plan. For the Tomotherapy HiArt plan, the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used. Three dose distributions (planned and delivered with and without patient setup correction) were compared based on radiobiological measures by using the P+ index and the BEUD concept as the common prescription point of the plans and plotting the tissue response probabilities against the mean target dose for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in this cancer case the planned and delivered dose distributions with and without patient setup correction give a P+ of 81.6%, 80.9% and 72.2%, for a BEUD to the planning target volume (PTV) of 78.0Gy, 77.7Gy and 75.4Gy, respectively. The corresponding tumor control probabilities are 86.3%, 85.1% and 75.1%, whereas the total complication probabilities are 4.64%, 4.20% and 2.89%, respectively. HT can encompass the often large PTV required while minimizing the volume of the organs at risk receiving high dose. However, the effectiveness of a HT treatment plan can be considerably deteriorated if an accurate patient setup system is not available. Taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues, a radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can be performed, which may provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome. In such situations, for effective evaluation and comparison of different treatment plans, traditional dose based evaluation tools can be complemented by the use of P+,BEUD diagrams.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.|Department of Medical Physics, Larissa University Hospital, Larissa, Greece.
authors.forename: Panayiotis
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Mavroidis
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Sotirios
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Stathakis
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Alonso
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Gutierrez
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Carlos
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Esquivel
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Chenyu
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Shi
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Nikos
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Papanikolaou
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D036542:Tomography, Spiral Computed / Q000379:methods*
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 1993;32(3):331-42
references.pmid: 8323773
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 May 15;21(1):123-35
references.pmid: 2032883
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jan 15;46(2):373-81
references.pmid: 10661344
references.citation: Med Phys. 1993 Nov-Dec;20(6):1709-19
references.pmid: 8309444
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Feb 15;25(3):529-39
references.pmid: 8436532
references.citation: Semin Radiat Oncol. 1999 Jan;9(1):108-17
references.pmid: 10196402
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 1999;38(6):787-98
references.pmid: 10522770
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 1997;36(sup10):1-32
references.pmid: 28173715
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 2000;39(5):579-95
references.pmid: 11093366
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1998 Jul;48(1):61-9
references.pmid: 9756173
references.citation: Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Oct;5(5):465-79
references.pmid: 16981789
references.citation: Med Phys. 2005 May;32(5):1414-23
references.pmid: 15984692
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1991 Dec;22(4):308-10
references.pmid: 1792326
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2000 Jan;45(1):69-90
references.pmid: 10661584
references.citation: Med Phys. 1997 Jan;24(1):103-10
references.pmid: 9029544
references.citation: Strahlenther Onkol. 2005 May;181(5):293-306
references.pmid: 15900425
references.citation: Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2002 Aug;1(4):311-6
references.pmid: 12625791
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 1997;36(8):789-92
references.pmid: 9482683
references.citation: Med Phys. 1996 Aug;23(8):1393-8
references.pmid: 8873036
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2001 Oct;46(10):2607-30
references.pmid: 11686278
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Aug 1;50(5):1113-22
references.pmid: 11483320
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2000 May;55(2):153-62
references.pmid: 10799727
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1992 Apr;37(4):871-90
references.pmid: 1589457
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Nov;33(11):4395-404
references.pmid: 17153418
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2000 Sep;45(9):2459-81
references.pmid: 11008949
references.citation: Med Phys. 2005 Aug;32(8):2673-81
references.pmid: 16193798
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 May 15;21(1):109-22
references.pmid: 2032882
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2001 Jul;46(7):1815-34
references.pmid: 11474927
references.citation: Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Aug;7(4):279-85
references.pmid: 18642966
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1993 Nov;29(2):253-60
references.pmid: 8310153
references.citation: Acta Oncol. 2003;42(8):865-81
references.pmid: 14968948
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Feb 1;52(2):382-9
references.pmid: 11872283
references.citation: Acta Radiol Oncol. 1984;23(5):379-91
references.pmid: 6095609
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2006 Oct;81(1):81-7
references.pmid: 17005280
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1995 Jul;36(1):15-23
references.pmid: 8525021
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Nov 15;51(4):938-46
references.pmid: 11704314
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2007 Feb 21;52(4):1055-73
references.pmid: 17264370
references.citation: Strahlenther Onkol. 2000 Mar;176(3):105-11
references.pmid: 10742830
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Oct 1;57(2):391-401
references.pmid: 12957250
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Dec;33(12):4710-7
references.pmid: 17278823
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 May 15;21(1):137-46
references.pmid: 2032884