Novel tools for stepping source brachytherapy treatment planning: enhanced geometrical optimization and interactive inverse planning.

PURPOSE: Dose optimization for stepping source brachytherapy can nowadays be performed using automated inverse algorithms. Although much quicker than graphical optimization, an experienced treatment planner is required for both methods. With automated inverse algorithms, the procedure to achieve the desired dose distribution is often based on trial-and-error. METHODS: A new approach for stepping source prostate brachytherapy treatment planning was developed as a quick and user-friendly alternative. This approach consists of the combined use of two novel tools: Enhanced geometrical optimization (EGO) and interactive inverse planning (IIP). EGO is an extended version of the common geometrical optimization method and is applied to create a dose distribution as homogeneous as possible. With the second tool, IIP, this dose distribution is tailored to a specific patient anatomy by interactively changing the highest and lowest dose on the contours. RESULTS: The combined use of EGO-IIP was evaluated on 24 prostate cancer patients, by having an inexperienced user create treatment plans, compliant to clinical dose objectives. This user was able to create dose plans of 24 patients in an average time of 4.4 min/patient. An experienced treatment planner without extensive training in EGO-IIP also created 24 plans. The resulting dose-volume histogram parameters were comparable to the clinical plans and showed high conformance to clinical standards. CONCLUSIONS: Even for an inexperienced user, treatment planning with EGO-IIP for stepping source prostate brachytherapy is feasible as an alternative to current optimization algorithms, offering speed, simplicity for the user, and local control of the dose levels.

A comparison of inverse optimization algorithms for HDR/PDR prostate brachytherapy treatment planning.

PURPOSE: Graphical optimization (GrO) is a common method for high-dose-rate/pulsed-dose-rate (PDR) prostate brachytherapy treatment planning. New methods performing inverse optimization of the dose distribution have been developed over the past years. The purpose is to compare GrO and two established inverse methods, inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA) and hybrid inverse treatment planning and optimization (HIPO), and one new method, enhanced geometric optimization-interactive inverse planning (EGO-IIP), in terms of speed and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 26 prostate cancer patients treated with a PDR brachytherapy boost, an experienced treatment planner optimized the dose distributions using four different methods: GrO, IPSA, HIPO, and EGO-IIP. Relevant DVH parameters (prostate-V100%, D90%, V150%; urethra-D(0.1cm3) and D(1.0cm3); rectum-D(0.1cm3) and D(2.0cm3); bladder-D(2.0cm3)) were evaluated and their compliance to the constraints. Treatment planning time was also recorded. RESULTS: All inverse methods resulted in shorter planning time (mean, 4-6.7 min), as compared with GrO (mean, 7.6 min). In terms of DVH parameters, none of the inverse methods outperformed the others. However, all inverse methods improved on compliance to the planning constraints as compared with GrO. On average, EGO-IIP and GrO resulted in highest D90%, and the IPSA plans resulted in lowest bladder D2.0cm3 and urethra D(1.0cm3). CONCLUSIONS: Inverse planning methods decrease planning time as compared with GrO for PDR/high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. DVH parameters are comparable for all methods.

Prostate volume and implant configuration during 48 hours of temporary prostate brachytherapy: limited effect of oedema.

BACKGROUND: In pulsed-dose rate prostate brachytherapy the dose is delivered during 48 hours after implantation, making the treatment sensitive to oedematic effects possibly affecting dose delivery. The aim was to study changes in prostate volume during treatment by analysing catheter configurations on three subsequent scans. METHODS: Prostate expansion was determined for 19 patients from the change in spatial distribution of the implanted catheters, using three CT-scans: a planning CT (CT1) and two CTs after 24 and 48 hours (CT2, CT3). An additional 4 patients only received one repeat CT (after 24 hours). The mean radial distance (MRD) of all dwell positions to the geometric centre of all dwell positions used was calculated to evaluate volume changes. From three implanted markers changes in inter-marker distances were assessed. The relative shifts of all dwell positions were determined using catheter- and marker-based registrations. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to compare the results from the different time points. RESULTS: The MRDs measured on the two repeat CTs were significantly different from CT1. The mean prostate volume change derived from the difference in MRD was +4.3% (range -9.3% to +15.6%) for CT1-CT2 (p < .05) and +4.4% (range -7.5% to +16.3%) for CT1-CT3 (p < .05). These values represented a mean increase of 1.2 cm(3) in the first 24 hours and 1.5 cm(3) in the subsequent 24 hours. There was no clear sign of prostate expansion from the change in inter-marker distance (CT1-CT2: 0.2 ± 1.8 mm; CT1-CT3: 0.6 ± 2.2 mm). Catheter configuration remained stable; shifts in catheter positions were largest in the C-C direction: 0 ± 1.8 mm for CT1-CT2 and 0 ± 1.4 mm for CT2-CT3. CONCLUSIONS: The volume changes derived from catheter displacements were small and therefore considered clinically insignificant. Implant configuration remains stable during 2 days of treatment, confirming the safety of this technique.

Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A substantial reduction of uncertainties in clinical brachytherapy should result in improved outcome in terms of increased local control and reduced side effects. Types of uncertainties have to be identified, grouped, and quantified. METHODS: A detailed literature review was performed to identify uncertainty components and their relative importance to the combined overall uncertainty. RESULTS: Very few components (e.g., source strength and afterloader timer) are independent of clinical disease site and location of administered dose. While the influence of medium on dose calculation can be substantial for low energy sources or non-deeply seated implants, the influence of medium is of minor importance for high-energy sources in the pelvic region. The level of uncertainties due to target, organ, applicator, and/or source movement in relation to the geometry assumed for treatment planning is highly dependent on fractionation and the level of image guided adaptive treatment. Most studies to date report the results in a manner that allows no direct reproduction and further comparison with other studies. Often, no distinction is made between variations, uncertainties, and errors or mistakes. The literature review facilitated the drafting of recommendations for uniform uncertainty reporting in clinical BT, which are also provided. The recommended comprehensive uncertainty investigations are key to obtain a general impression of uncertainties, and may help to identify elements of the brachytherapy treatment process that need improvement in terms of diminishing their dosimetric uncertainties. It is recommended to present data on the analyzed parameters (distance shifts, volume changes, source or applicator position, etc.), and also their influence on absorbed dose for clinically-relevant dose parameters (e.g., target parameters such as D90 or OAR doses). Publications on brachytherapy should include a statement of total dose uncertainty for the entire treatment course, taking into account the fractionation schedule and level of image guidance for adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: This report on brachytherapy clinical uncertainties represents a working project developed by the Brachytherapy Physics Quality Assurances System (BRAPHYQS) subcommittee to the Physics Committee within GEC-ESTRO. Further, this report has been reviewed and approved by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Deviations from the planned dose during 48 hours of stepping source prostate brachytherapy caused by anatomical variations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the uncertainties in planned dose associated with catheter and organ movement during 48 hours of stepping source prostate brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pulsed-dose rate (PDR) prostate brachytherapy as a boost is given in 24 pulses every 2 hours, making the total treatment last 48 hours. The entire treatment is based on one plan, created on the planning CT (CT1). Two follow-up CTs (CT2 and CT3) were acquired; halfway through the treatment and at the end of treatment. On these repeat scans the catheters were reconstructed and PTV and OARs were delineated. The original treatment plan was calculated on the repeat CTs. Target coverage V(100%), D(90), dose to 2cm(3) (D2cm(3)) of the rectum and bladder and dose to 0.1cm(3) of the urethra were recorded from the recalculated DVHs. RESULTS: On the two repeat CTs the V100% decreased -1.5% and -2.3% as compared to the planning CT. For the rectum D2cm(3), the average increase was 14.8% (CT1-CT2) and 17.3% (CT1-CT3). Increase in bladder D2cm(3) was on average 23.1% (CT1-CT2) and 24.8% (CT1-CT3). For the urethra D0.1cm(3) an average decrease of -2% (CT1-CT2) and -3.2% (CT2-CT3) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in target coverage during treatment were small and considered clinically irrelevant. However, an overall increase in dose to the OARs was found as compared to the planned dose, which should be taken into account during treatment planning.

Improved tumour control probability with MRI-based prostate brachytherapy treatment planning.

BACKGROUND: Due to improved visibility on MRI, contouring of the prostate is improved compared to CT. The aim of this study was to quantify the benefits of using MRI for treatment planning as compared to CT-based planning for temporary implant prostate brachytherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT and MRI image data of 13 patients were used to delineate the prostate and organs at risk (OARs) and to reconstruct the implanted catheters (typically 12). An experienced treatment planner created plans on the CT-based structure sets (CT-plan) and on the MRI-based structure sets (MRI-plan). Then, active dwell-positions and weights of the CT-plans were transferred to the MRI-based structure sets (CT-plan(MRI-contours)) and resulting dosimetric parameters and tumour control probabilities (TCPs) were studied. RESULTS: For the CT-plan(MRI-contours) a statistically significant lower target coverage was detected: mean V100 was 95.1% as opposed to 98.3% for the original plans (p < 0.01). Planning on CT caused cold-spots that influence the TCP. MRI-based planning improved the TCPs by 6-10%, depending on the parameters of the radiobiological model used for TCP calculation. Basing the treatment plan on either CT- or MRI-delineations does not influence plan quality. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of CT-based treatment planning by transferring the plan to MRI reveals underdosage of the prostate, especially at the base side. Planning on MRI can prevent cold-spots in the tumour and improves the TCP.

Influence of dose point and inverse optimization on interstitial cervical and oropharyngeal carcinoma brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluation of the use of optimization methods in interstitial cervical and oropharyngeal brachytherapy; evaluation of the conformal index (COIN) and the natural dose ratio (NDR) to quantify the implant quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT-based dose distributions were obtained for seven implants according to the Paris system. CT-based implants were used to assess the dose point and inverse optimization methods. To compare the results of these planning methods, the coverage index (CI), normal tissue irradiation (NTI), and the protection of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated using cumulative dose volume histograms (CDVH). RESULTS: In regular cervical implants, a CI of 94 and 96%; a NTI of 35 and 28% resulted for non-optimized and optimized implants, respectively. In irregular cervical implants, a CI of 88, 96, and 90%; a NTI of 44, 37, and 44% resulted for non-optimized, dose point optimized, and inverse optimized implants, respectively. Compared to the non-optimized implants; both optimization methods resulted in better protection for the bladder wall. As for the protection of the rectal wall, only the inverse optimization gave a better result. In oropharyngeal implants, a better CI resulted after dose point optimization. Irradiation of the contralateral parotid were improved after both optimization methods. The maximum change in COIN that could have been achieved by optimization was 3%, as CI and NTI increased similarly. For the same value of COIN, an underdosage of PTV was avoided by the optimization methods as NDR increased from 0.86 to 1.01. CONCLUSION: CT-based optimized implant allows conformation of the dose distribution to the PTV while sparing normal tissue and organs at risk. COIN and NDR should be used together to evaluate both doses to normal tissue and organs at risk, and an under- or overdose inside the PTV.