PURPOSE: An adaptive concomitant boost (ACB) for the neo-adjuvant treatment of rectal cancer was clinically implemented. In this study population margins M(90,90) considering rectal deformation were derived for 10 consecutive patients treated at 18 × 2.3Gy with Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and prospectively validated on 20 additional patients treated with HT, delivering ACB in the last 6 fractions. METHODS: Sectorial margins M(90,90) of the whole and second treatment parts were assessed for 90% population through a method combining the 90% coverage probability maps of rectal positions (CPC90%) with 3D local distance measurements between the CPC90% and a reference rectal contour. M(90,90) were compared with the margins M(90,90)95%/99%, ensuring CPC90% coverage with 95%/99% confidence level. M(90,90) of the treatment second part were chosen as ACB margins which were clinically validated for each patient by means of %volume missing of CPC5/6 excluded by the ACB margins. RESULTS: The whole treatment M(90,90) ranged between 1.9 mm and 9 mm in the lower-posterior and upper-anterior sectors, respectively. Regarding ACB, M(90,90) were 7 mm in the anterior direction and <5 mm elsewhere. M(90,90)95%/99% did not significantly differ from M(90,90). The %volume excluded by the ACB margin was<2% for all male and <5% for 9/10 female patients. The dosimetry impact on R_adapt for the patients with the largest residual error was negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Local deformation measurements confirm an anisotropic motion of rectum once set-up error is rigidly corrected. Margins of 7 mm anterior and 5 mm elsewhere are adequate for ACB. Female patients show a slightly larger residual error.
Assessment and clinical validation of margins for adaptive simultaneous integrated boost in neo-adjuvant radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer.
2015
Abstract
PURPOSE: An adaptive concomitant boost (ACB) for the neo-adjuvant treatment of rectal cancer was clinically implemented. In this study population margins M(90,90) considering rectal deformation were derived for 10 consecutive patients treated at 18 × 2.3Gy with Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and prospectively validated on 20 additional patients treated with HT, delivering ACB in the last 6 fractions. METHODS: Sectorial margins M(90,90) of the whole and second treatment parts were assessed for 90% population through a method combining the 90% coverage probability maps of rectal positions (CPC90%) with 3D local distance measurements between the CPC90% and a reference rectal contour. M(90,90) were compared with the margins M(90,90)95%/99%, ensuring CPC90% coverage with 95%/99% confidence level. M(90,90) of the treatment second part were chosen as ACB margins which were clinically validated for each patient by means of %volume missing of CPC5/6 excluded by the ACB margins. RESULTS: The whole treatment M(90,90) ranged between 1.9 mm and 9 mm in the lower-posterior and upper-anterior sectors, respectively. Regarding ACB, M(90,90) were 7 mm in the anterior direction and <5 mm elsewhere. M(90,90)95%/99% did not significantly differ from M(90,90). The %volume excluded by the ACB margin was<2% for all male and <5% for 9/10 female patients. The dosimetry impact on R_adapt for the patients with the largest residual error was negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Local deformation measurements confirm an anisotropic motion of rectum once set-up error is rigidly corrected. Margins of 7 mm anterior and 5 mm elsewhere are adequate for ACB. Female patients show a slightly larger residual error.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


