Program Information
Novel Beam-Specific Adaptive Margins for Reducing Organ-At-Risk Doses
H Tsang*, CP Kamerling , P Ziegenhein , S Nill , U Oelfke , The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
Presentations
WE-AB-209-8 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016) 7:30 AM - 9:30 AM Room: 209
Purpose:
Current practice of using 3D margins in radiotherapy with high-energy photon beams provides larger-than-required target coverage. According to the photon depth-dose curve, target displacements in beam direction result in minute changes in dose delivered. We exploit this behavior by generating margins on a per-beam basis which simultaneously account for the relative distance of the target and adjacent organs-at-risk (OARs).
Methods:
For each beam, we consider only geometrical uncertainties of the target location perpendicular to beam direction. By weighting voxels based on its proximity to an OAR, we generate adaptive margins that yield similar overall target coverage probability and reduced OAR dose-burden, at the expense of increased target volume.
Three IMRT plans, using 3D margins and 2D per-beam margins with and without adaptation, were generated for five prostate patients with a prescription dose Dpres of 78Gy in 2Gy fractions using identical optimisation constraints. Systematic uncertainties of 1.1, 1.1, 1.5mm in the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively, and 0.9, 1.1, 1.0mm for the random uncertainties, were assumed. A verification tool was employed to simulate the effects of systematic and random errors using a population size of 50,000. The fraction of the population that satisfies or violates a given DVH constraint was used for comparison.
Results:
We observe similar target coverage across all plans, with at least 97.5% of the population meeting the D98%>95%Dpres constraint. When looking at the probability of the population receiving D5<70Gy for the rectum, we observed median absolute increases of 23.61% (range, 2.15%-27.85%) and 6.97% (range, 0.65%-17.76%) using per-beam margins with and without adaptation, respectively, relative to using 3D margins.
Conclusion:
We observed sufficient and similar target coverage using per-beam margins. By adapting each per-beam margin away from an OAR, we can further reduce OAR dose without significantly lowering target coverage probability by irradiating more less-important tissues.
Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: This work is supported by Cancer Research UK under Programme C33589/A19908. Research at ICR is also supported by Cancer Research UK under Programme C33589/A19727 and NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at RMH and ICR.
Contact Email: