Hu, Yanle

AbstractThis work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso‐center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

On‐board magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance during radiation therapy offers the potential for more accurate treatment delivery. To utilize the real‐time image information, a crucial prerequisite is the ability to successfully segment and track regions of interest (ROI). The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of different segmentation algorithms using motion images (4 frames per second) acquired using a MR image‐guided radiotherapy (MR‐IGRT) system. Manual contours of the kidney, bladder, duodenum, and a liver tumor by an experienced radiation oncologist were used as the ground truth for performance evaluation. Besides the manual segmentation, images were automatically segmented using thresholding, fuzzy k‐means (FKM), k‐harmonic means (KHM), and reaction‐diffusion level set evolution (RD‐LSE) algorithms, as well as the tissue tracking algorithm provided by the ViewRay treatment planning and delivery system (VR‐TPDS). The performance of the five algorithms was evaluated quantitatively by comparing with the manual segmentation using the Dice coefficient and target registration error (TRE) measured as the distance between the centroid of the manual ROI and the centroid of the automatically segmented ROI. All methods were able to successfully segment the bladder and the kidney, but only FKM, KHM, and VR‐TPDS were able to segment the liver tumor and the duodenum. The performance of the thresholding, FKM, KHM, and RD‐LSE algorithms degraded as the local image contrast decreased, whereas the performance of the VP‐TPDS method was nearly independent of local image contrast due to the reference registration algorithm. For segmenting high‐contrast images (i.e., kidney), the thresholding method provided the best speed ( ) with a satisfying accuracy ( ). When the image contrast was low, the VR‐TPDS method had the best automatic contour. Results suggest an image quality determination procedure before segmentation and a combination of different methods for optimal segmentation with the on‐board MR‐IGRT system. PACS number(s): 87.57.nm, 87.57.N‐, 87.61.Tg