TY  - JOUR
A1  - Toussaint, André
A1  - Richter, Anne
A1  - Mantel, Frederick
A1  - Flickinger, John C.
A1  - Grills, Inga Siiner
A1  - Tyagi, Neelam
A1  - Sahgal, Arjun
A1  - Letourneau, Daniel
A1  - Sheehan, Jason P.
A1  - Schlesinger, David J.
A1  - Gerszten, Peter Carlos
A1  - Guckenberger, Matthias
T1  - Variability in spine radiosurgery treatment planning – results of an international multi-institutional study
JF  - Radiation Oncology
N2  - Background

The aim of this study was to quantify the variability in spinal radiosurgery (SRS) planning practices between five international institutions, all member of the Elekta Spine Radiosurgery Research Consortium.

Methods

Four institutions provided one representative patient case each consisting of the medical history, CT and MR imaging. A step-wise planning approach was used where, after each planning step a consensus was generated that formed the basis for the next planning step. This allowed independent analysis of all planning steps of CT-MR image registration, GTV definition, CTV definition, PTV definition and SRS treatment planning. In addition, each institution generated one additional SRS plan for each case based on intra-institutional image registration and contouring, independent of consensus results.

Results

Averaged over the four cases, image registration variability ranged between translational 1.1 mm and 2.4 mm and rotational 1.1° and 2.0° in all three directions. GTV delineation variability was 1.5 mm in axial and 1.6 mm in longitudinal direction averaged for the four cases. CTV delineation variability was 0.8 mm in axial and 1.2 mm in longitudinal direction. CTV-to-PTV margins ranged between 0 mm and 2 mm according to institutional protocol. Delineation variability was 1 mm in axial directions for the spinal cord. Average PTV coverage for a single fraction18 Gy prescription was 87 ± 5 %; Dmin to the PTV was 7.5 ± 1.8 Gy averaged over all cases and institutions. Average Dmax to the PRV_SC (spinal cord + 1 mm) was 10.5 ± 1.6 Gy and the average Paddick conformity index was 0.69 ± 0.06.

Conclusions

Results of this study reflect the variability in current practice of spine radiosurgery in large and highly experienced academic centers. Despite close methodical agreement in the daily workflow, clinically significant variability in all steps of the treatment planning process was demonstrated. This may translate into differences in patient clinical outcome and highlights the need for consensus and established delineation and planning criteria.
KW  - planning variability
KW  - spine radiosurgery
KW  - vertebral metastases
KW  - delineation
Y1  - 2016
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-146687
VL  - 11
IS  - 57
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Hardcastle, Nicholas
A1  - Tomé, Wolfgang A.
A1  - Cannon, Donald M.
A1  - Brouwer, Charlotte L.
A1  - Wittendorp, Paul W. H.
A1  - Dogan, Nesrin
A1  - Guckenberger, Matthias
A1  - Allaire, Stéphane
A1  - Mallya, Yogish
A1  - Kumar, Prashant
A1  - Oechsner, Markus
A1  - Richter, Anne
A1  - Song, Shiyu
A1  - Myers, Michael
A1  - Polat, Bülent
A1  - Bzdusek, Karl
T1  - A multi-institution evaluation of deformable image registration algorithms for automatic organ delineation in adaptive head and neck radiotherapy
JF  - Radiation Oncology
N2  - Background: Adaptive Radiotherapy aims to identify anatomical deviations during a radiotherapy course and modify the treatment plan to maintain treatment objectives. This requires regions of interest (ROIs) to be defined using the most recent imaging data. This study investigates the clinical utility of using deformable image registration (DIR) to automatically propagate ROIs. 
Methods: Target (GTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) ROIs were non-rigidly propagated from a planning CT scan to a per-treatment CT scan for 22 patients. Propagated ROIs were quantitatively compared with expert physician-drawn ROIs on the per-treatment scan using Dice scores and mean slicewise Hausdorff distances, and center of mass distances for GTVs. The propagated ROIs were qualitatively examined by experts and scored based on their clinical utility. 
Results: Good agreement between the DIR-propagated ROIs and expert-drawn ROIs was observed based on the metrics used. 94% of all ROIs generated using DIR were scored as being clinically useful, requiring minimal or no edits. However, 27% (12/44) of the GTVs required major edits. 
Conclusion: DIR was successfully used on 22 patients to propagate target and OAR structures for ART with good anatomical agreement for OARs. It is recommended that propagated target structures be thoroughly reviewed by the treating physician.
KW  - intensity-modulated radiotherapy
KW  - megavoltage computed-tomography
KW  - cancer
KW  - variability
KW  - strategies
KW  - risk
Y1  - 2012
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-134756
VL  - 7
IS  - 90
ER  -