Improving Cervical Cancer Nodal Boost Radiation Therapy by Quantifying Uncertainties and Exploring Advanced Radiation Therapy Modalities

Radiation therapy for patients with intact cervical cancer is frequently delivered using primary external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by two fractions of intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). Although the tumor is the primary radiation target, controlling microscopic disease in the lymph nodes is just as critical to patient treatment outcome. In patients where gross lymphadenopathy is discovered, an extra EBRT boost course is delivered between the two ICBT fractions. Since the nodal boost is an addendum to primary EBRT and ICBT, the prescription and delivery must be performed considering previously delivered dose. This project aims to address the major issues of this complex process for the purpose of improving treatment accuracy while increasing dose sparing to the surrounding normal tissues. Because external beam boosts to involved lymph nodes are given prior to the completion of ICBT, assumptions must be made about dose to positive lymph nodes from future implants. The first aim of this project was to quantify differences in nodal dose contribution between independent ICBT fractions. We retrospectively evaluated differences in the ICBT dose contribution to positive pelvic nodes for ten patients who had previously received external beam nodal boost. Our results indicate that the mean dose to the pelvic nodes differed by up to 1.9 Gy between independent ICBT fractions. The second aim is to develop and validate a volumetric method for summing dose of the normal tissues during prescription of nodal boost. The traditional method of dose summation uses the maximum point dose from each modality, which often only represents the worst case scenario. However, the worst case is often an exaggeration when highly conformal therapy methods such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are used. We used deformable image registration algorithms to volumetrically sum dose for the bladder and rectum and created a voxel-by-voxel validation method. The mean error in deformable image registration results of all voxels within the bladder and rectum were 5 and 6 mm, respectively. Finally, the third aim explored the potential use of proton therapy to reduce normal tissue dose. A major physical advantage of protons over photons is that protons stop after delivering dose in the tumor. Although theoretically superior to photons, proton beams are more sensitive to uncertainties caused by interfractional anatomical variations, and must be accounted for during treatment planning to ensure complete target coverage. We have demonstrated a systematic approach to determine population-based anatomical margin requirements for proton therapy. The observed optimal treatment angles for common iliac nodes were 90° (left lateral) and 180° (posterior-anterior [PA]) with additional 0.8 cm and 0.9 cm margins, respectively. For external iliac nodes, lateral and PA beams required additional 0.4 cm and 0.9 cm margins, respectively. Through this project, we have provided radiation oncologists with additional information about potential differences in nodal dose between independent ICBT insertions and volumetric total dose distribution in the bladder and rectum. We have also determined the margins needed for safe delivery of proton therapy when delivering nodal boosts to patients with cervical cancer.

Comparison of Tumor Shrinkage and Cumulative Dose Distribution for Lung Cancers

Background: The physical characteristic of protons is that they deliver most of their radiation dose to the target volume and deliver no dose to the normal tissue distal to the tumor. Previously, numerous studies have shown unique advantages of proton therapy over intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in conforming dose to the tumor and sparing dose to the surrounding normal tissues and the critical structures in many clinical sites. However, proton therapy is known to be more sensitive to treatment uncertainties such as inter- and intra-fractional variations in patient anatomy. To date, no study has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of proton therapy compared with the conventional IMRT under the consideration of both respiratory motion and tumor shrinkage in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Purpose: This thesis investigated two questions for establishing a clinically relevant comparison of the two different modalities (IMRT and proton therapy). The first question was whether or not there are any differences in tumor shrinkage between patients randomized to IMRT versus passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT). Tumor shrinkage is considered a standard measure of radiation therapy response that has been widely used to gauge a short-term progression of radiation therapy. The second question was whether or not there are any differences between the planned dose and 5D dose under the influence of inter- and intra-fractional variations in the patient anatomy for both modalities. Methods: A total of 45 patients (25 IMRT patients and 20 PSPT patients) were used to quantify the tumor shrinkage in terms of the change of the primary gross tumor volume (GTVp). All patients were randomized to receive either IMRT or PSPT for NSCLC. Treatment planning goals were identical for both groups. All patients received 5 to 8 weekly repeated 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) scans during the course of radiation treatments. The original GTVp contours were propagated to T50 of weekly 4DCT images using deformable image registration and their absolute volumes were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the distribution of tumor shrinkage between the two population groups. In order to investigate the difference between the planned dose and the 5D dose with consideration of both breathing motion and anatomical change, we re-calculated new dose distributions at every phase of the breathing cycle for all available weekly 4DCT data sets which resulted 50 to 80 individual dose calculations for each of the 7 patients presented in this thesis. The newly calculated dose distributions were then deformed and accumulated to T50 of the planning 4DCT for comparison with the planned dose distribution. Results: At the end of the treatment, both IMRT and PSPT groups showed mean tumor volume reductions of 23.6% ( 19.2%) and 20.9% ( 17.0 %) respectively. Moreover, the mean difference in tumor shrinkage between two groups is 3% along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, [-8%, 14%]. The rate of tumor shrinkage was highly correlated with the initial tumor volume size. For the planning dose and 5D dose comparison study, all 7 patients showed a mean difference of 1 % in terms of target coverage for both IMRT and PSPT treatment plans. Conclusions: The results of the tumor shrinkage investigation showed no statistically significant difference in tumor shrinkage between the IMRT and PSPT patients, and the tumor shrinkage between the two modalities is similar based on the 95% confidence interval. From the pilot study of comparing the planned dose with the 5D dose, we found the difference to be only 1%. Overall impression of the two modalities in terms of treatment response as measured by the tumor shrinkage and 5D dose under the influence of anatomical change that were designed under the same protocol (i.e. randomized trial) showed similar result.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Evaluation with the Radiological Physics Center Head and Neck Phantom

Validation of treatment plan quality and dose calculation accuracy is essential for new radiotherapy techniques, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT delivers intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments while simultaneously rotating the gantry, adding an additional level of complexity to both the dose calculation and delivery of VMAT treatments compared to static gantry IMRT. The purpose of this project was to compare two VMAT systems, Elekta VMAT and Varian RapidArc, to the current standard of care, IMRT, in terms of both treatment plan quality and dosimetric delivery accuracy using the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom. Clinically relevant treatment plans were created for the phantom using typical prescription and dose constraints for Elekta VMAT (planned with Pinnacle3 Smart Arc) and RapidArc and IMRT (both planned with Eclipse). The treatment plans were evaluated to determine if they were clinically comparable using several dosimetric criteria, including ability to meet dose objectives, hot spots, conformity index, and homogeneity index. The planned treatments were delivered to the phantom and absolute doses and relative dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film, respectively. The measured and calculated doses of each treatment were compared to determine if they were clinically acceptable based upon RPC criteria of ±7% dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement. Gamma analysis was used to assess dosimetric accuracy, as well. All treatment plans were able to meet the dosimetric objectives set by the RPC and had similar hot spots in the normal tissue. The Elekta VMAT plan was more homogenous but less conformal than the RapidArc and IMRT plans. When comparing the measured and calculated doses, all plans met the RPC ±7%/4 mm criteria. The percent of points passing the gamma analysis for each treatment delivery was acceptable. Treatment plan quality of the Elekta VMAT, RapidArc and IMRT treatments were comparable for consistent dose prescriptions and constraints. Additionally, the dosimetric accuracy of the Elekta VMAT and RapidArc treatments was verified to be within acceptable tolerances.