Clinical Impact of Couch Top and Rails on IMRT and Arc Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical impact of the Varian Exact Couch on dose and volume coverage to targets and critical structures and tumor control probability (TCP) for 6-MV IMRT and Arc Therapy. Methods: Five clinical prostate patients were planned with both, 6-MV 8-field IMRT and 6-MV 2-field RapidArc using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). These plans neglected treatment couch attenuation, as is standard clinical practice. Dose distributions were then recalculated in Eclipse with the inclusion of the Varian Exact Couch (imaging couch top) and the rails in varying configurations. The changes in dose and coverage were evaluated using the DVHs from each plan iteration. We used a tumor control probability (TCP) model to calculate losses in tumor control resulting from not accounting for the couch top and rails. We also verified dose measurements in a phantom. Results: Failure to account for the treatment couch and rails resulted in clinically unacceptable dose and volume coverage losses to the target for both IMRT and RapidArc. The couch caused average dose losses (relative to plans that ignored the couch) to the prostate of 4.2% and 2.0% for IMRT with the rails out and in, respectively, and 3.2% and 2.9% for RapidArc with the rails out and in, respectively. On average, the percentage of the target covered by the prescribed dose dropped to 35% and 84% for IMRT (rails out and in, respectively) and to 18% and 17% for RapidArc (rails out and in, respectively). The TCP was also reduced by as much as 10.5% (6.3% on average). Dose and volume coverage losses for IMRT plans were primarily due to the rails, while the imaging couch top contributed most to losses for RapidArc. Both the couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage losses that can render plans clinically unacceptable. A follow-up study we performed found that the less attenuating unipanel mesh couch top available with the Varian Exact couch does not cause a clinically impactful loss of dose or coverage for IMRT but still causes an unacceptable loss for RapidArc. Conclusions: Both the imaging couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage loss to a degree that, if included, would prevent the plan from meeting clinical planning criteria. Therefore, the imaging and mesh couch tops and rails should be accounted for in Arc Therapy and the imaging couch and rails only in IMRT treatment planning.

DUAL ENERGY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR PROTON THERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING

Proton radiation therapy is gaining popularity because of the unique characteristics of its dose distribution, e.g., high dose-gradient at the distal end of the percentage-depth-dose curve (known as the Bragg peak). The high dose-gradient offers the possibility of delivering high dose to the target while still sparing critical organs distal to the target. However, the high dose-gradient is a double-edged sword: a small shift of the highly conformal high-dose area can cause the target to be substantially under-dosed or the critical organs to be substantially over-dosed. Because of that, large margins are required in treatment planning to ensure adequate dose coverage of the target, which prevents us from realizing the full potential of proton beams. Therefore, it is critical to reduce uncertainties in the proton radiation therapy. One major uncertainty in a proton treatment is the range uncertainty related to the estimation of proton stopping power ratio (SPR) distribution inside a patient. The SPR distribution inside a patient is required to account for tissue heterogeneities when calculating dose distribution inside the patient. In current clinical practice, the SPR distribution inside a patient is estimated from the patient’s treatment planning computed tomography (CT) images based on the CT number-to-SPR calibration curve. The SPR derived from a single CT number carries large uncertainties in the presence of human tissue composition variations, which is the major drawback of the current SPR estimation method. We propose to solve this problem by using dual energy CT (DECT) and hypothesize that the range uncertainty can be reduced by a factor of two from currently used value of 3.5%. A MATLAB program was developed to calculate the electron density ratio (EDR) and effective atomic number (EAN) from two CT measurements of the same object. An empirical relationship was discovered between mean excitation energies and EANs existing in human body tissues. With the MATLAB program and the empirical relationship, a DECT-based method was successfully developed to derive SPRs for human body tissues (the DECT method). The DECT method is more robust against the uncertainties in human tissues compositions than the current single-CT-based method, because the DECT method incorporated both density and elemental composition information in the SPR estimation. Furthermore, we studied practical limitations of the DECT method. We found that the accuracy of the DECT method using conventional kV-kV x-ray pair is susceptible to CT number variations, which compromises the theoretical advantage of the DECT method. Our solution to this problem is to use a different x-ray pair for the DECT. The accuracy of the DECT method using different combinations of x-ray energies, i.e., the kV-kV, kV-MV and MV-MV pair, was compared using the measured imaging uncertainties for each case. The kV-MV DECT was found to be the most robust against CT number variations. In addition, we studied how uncertainties propagate through the DECT calculation, and found general principles of selecting x-ray pairs for the DECT method to minimize its sensitivity to CT number variations. The uncertainties in SPRs estimated using the kV-MV DECT were analyzed further and compared to those using the stoichiometric method. The uncertainties in SPR estimation can be divided into five categories according to their origins: the inherent uncertainty, the DECT modeling uncertainty, the CT imaging uncertainty, the uncertainty in the mean excitation energy, and SPR variation with proton energy. Additionally, human body tissues were divided into three tissue groups – low density (lung) tissues, soft tissues and bone tissues. The uncertainties were estimated separately because their uncertainties were different under each condition. An estimate of the composite range uncertainty (2s) was determined for three tumor sites – prostate, lung, and head-and-neck, by combining the uncertainty estimates of all three tissue groups, weighted by their proportions along typical beam path for each treatment site. In conclusion, the DECT method holds theoretical advantages in estimating SPRs for human tissues over the current single-CT-based method. Using existing imaging techniques, the kV-MV DECT approach was capable of reducing the range uncertainty from the currently used value of 3.5% to 1.9%-2.3%, but it is short to reach our original goal of reducing the range uncertainty by a factor of two. The dominant source of uncertainties in the kV-MV DECT was the uncertainties in CT imaging, especially in MV CT imaging. Further reduction in beam hardening effect, the impact of scatter, out-of-field object etc. would reduce the Hounsfeld Unit variations in CT imaging. The kV-MV DECT still has the potential to reduce the range uncertainty further.

Attitudes and other barriers to the utilization of clinical research findings by American physicians: A systematic review

Background: The Institute of Medicine estimates that only a maximum of 25% of clinical research findings are incorporated into practice by physicians. To improve clinical practice, efforts have been made to promote evidence-based medicine and the use of clinical guidelines. Despite these efforts, the gap between research and clinical practice remains wide.^ Objective: To systematically review the literature describing the factors which influence the use of clinical research recommendations by American physicians.^ Hypothesis: Barriers exist in the application of clinical research into clinical practice, and are multifactorial. The establishment of the Clinical and Translational Awards (CTSA; special federal grants awarded to selected institutions to support clinical and translational research) has reduced the effect of these barriers and improved the process of clinical research translation into practice among American physicians.^ Aims: Identify barriers and facilitators of the use of research findings in clinical practice by American physicians. Contrast studies published six years before and after the creation of the CTSA.^ Methods: The sources of data include published literature from Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO. Selected studies must be qualitative, a survey of American clinicians, based on evidence-based medicine practice, clinical guidelines or treatment pathways. Systematic reviews and reports were excluded, as well as studies with less than 100 respondents.^ Results: In total, 1036 abstracts were reviewed; 115 full text potential articles were identified and reviewed, and a total of 31 studies met all criteria for inclusion in the final review.^ Conclusions: The barriers against the application of clinical research findings, in the forms of clinical guidelines, evidence-based medicine guides and clinical pathways, can be divided broadly into physician barriers, practice/system barriers and patient barriers. Physician barriers are the most common barriers, especially the lack of familiarity with guidelines and the lack of time. Of the factors which improve the use of research based guidelines, physician factors such as younger age, lower duration of clinical practice, specialty training, and practice in large group Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) settings with fewer patients seen were the most commonly cited.^