Assessment of the therapeutic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography‑guided nasopharyngeal carcinoma radiotherapy

Liu,Jiabin; Lyman,Khumbula  Maitireazvo; Ding,Zhenhua; Zhou,Liang

doi:10.3892/ol.2019.10412

Assessment of the therapeutic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography‑guided nasopharyngeal carcinoma radiotherapy

Authors:
- Jiabin Liu
- Khumbula Maitireazvo Lyman
- Zhenhua Ding
- Liang Zhou
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiation Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China
Published online on: May 30, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10412
Pages: 1071-1080
Copyright: © Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the ability of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to improve the accuracy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) radiotherapy by analyzing the setup and inter‑fraction errors at different levels and directions of the target volumes. A total of 113 patients with NPC who were undergoing intensity‑modulated radiotherapy were recruited for the present study. Each patient had at least three CBCT exams prior to the start of radiation therapy. Three anatomic bony landmarks, including the upper neck, lower neck and head, were used to represent the different levels of assessment. The positioning errors were registered in three planes throughout the course of radiotherapy: The right‑left (RL), superior‑inferior (SI) and anterior‑posterior (AP) directions. The planning CT images were matched with the CBCT images to determine the naso‑pharynx shifts. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted to establish the specificity and sensitivity of CBCT. The planning target volume margin (MPTV) for the head was 0.9 mm, 1.4 mm for the upper neck and 2.0 mm for the lower neck. MPTVs of 1.5, 0.6 and 2.2 mm in the RL, SI and AP directions, respectively, were detected. In addition, there was evidence of setup errors in the three planes (RL, SI and AP) with the greatest error observed in the AP direction. Furthermore, the setup uncertainties in the neck region were greater than those of the head. In conclusion, CBCT could greatly improve the accuracy of radiotherapy by minimizing the setup errors and MPTV.

View Figures

View References

1	Chua MLK, Wee JTS, Hui EP and Chan ATC: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet. 387:1012–1024. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Lo KW, Chung GT and To KF: Deciphering the molecular genetic basis of NPC through molecular, cytogenetic, and epigenetic approaches. Semin Cancer Biol. 22:79–86. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Zhong H and Chen G, Lin D and Chen G: Comparison of side effects of intensity modulated radiotherapy and conventional radiotherapy in 69 cases with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 27:462–464. 2013.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
4	Han C, Chen YJ, Liu A, Schultheiss TE and Wong JY: Actual dose variation of parotid glands and spinal cord for nasopharyngeal cancer patients during radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 70:1256–1262. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Zhang X, Li M, Cao J, Luo JW, Xu GZ, Gao L, Yi J, Huang X, Xiao J, Li S and Dai J: Dosimetric variations of target volumes and organs at risk in nasopharyngeal carcinoma intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 85:e506–e513. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Boda-Heggemann J, Lohr F, Wenz F, Flentje M and Guckenberger M: kV cone-beam CT-based IGRT: A clinical review. Strahlenther Onkol. 187:284–291. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Chau RM, Teo PM, Kam MK, Leung SF, Cheung KY and Chan AT: Dosimetric comparison between 2-dimensional radiation therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy in treatment of advanced T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma: To treat less or more in the planning organ-at-risk volume of the brainstem and spinal cord. Med Dosim. 32:263–270. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	van Herk M, Remeijer P, Rasch C and Lebesque JV: The probability of correct target dosage: Dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 47:1121–1135. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Wilkinson JM: Geometric uncertainties in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 77:86–87. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Chinese committee for staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma report on revision of the Chinese 1992 staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiation Oncol. 2:233–240. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
11	DICOM, . Scope and Field of Application. http://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part01/chapter_1.htmlJune 12–2017
12	Su J, Chen W, Yang H, Hong J, Zhang Z, Yang G, Li L and Wei R: Different setup errors assessed by weekly cone-beam computed tomography on different registration in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. OncoTargets and Ther. 8:2545–2553. 2015.
13	Stroom JC and Heijmen BJ: Geometrical uncertainties, radiotherapy planning margins, and the ICRU-62 report. Radiother Oncol. 64:75–83. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Zweig MH and Campbell G: Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: A fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 39:561–577. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
15	Tan W, Li Y, Han G, Xu J, Wang X, Li Y and Hu D: Target volume and position variations during intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther. 6:1719–1728. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Chen AM, Farwell DG, Luu Q, Donald PJ, Perks J and Purdy JA: Evaluation of the planning target volume in the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: What is the appropriate expansion margin in the setting of daily image guidance? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 81:943–949. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Hurkmans CW, Remeijer P, Lebesque JV and Mijnheer BJ: Set-up verification using portal imaging; review of current clinical practice. Radiother Oncol. 58:105–120. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Zhang L, Garden AS, Lo J, Ang KK, Ahamad A, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, Chambers MS, Zhu XR, Mohan R and Dong L: Multiple regions-of-interest analysis of setup uncertainties for head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 64:1559–1569. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Cheo T, Loh Y, Chen D, Lee KM and Tham I: Measuring radiotherapy setup errors at multiple neck levels in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC): A case for differential PTV expansion. Radiother Oncol. 117:419–424. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	van Kranen S, van Beek S, Rasch C, van Herk M and Sonke JJ: Setup uncertainties of anatomical sub-regions in head-and-neck cancer patients after offline CBCT guidance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 73:1566–1573. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Djordjevic M, Sjöholm E, Tullgren O and Sorcini B: Assessment of residual setup errors for anatomical sub-structures in image-guided head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy. Acta Oncol. 53:646–653. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Polat B, Wilbert J, Baier K, Flentje M and Guckenberger M: Nonrigid patient setup errors in the head-and-neck region. Strahlenther Onkol. 183:506–511. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Ove R, Cavalieri R, Noble D and Russo SM: Variation of neck position with image-guided radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 35:1–5. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Li H, Zhu XR, Zhang L, Dong L, Tung S, Ahamad A, Chao KS, Morrison WH, Rosenthal DI, Schwartz DL, et al: Comparison of 2D radiographic images and 3D cone beam computed tomography for positioning head-and-neck radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 71:916–925. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Wang J, Bai S, Chen N, Xu F, Jiang X, Li Y, Xu Q, Shen Y, Zhang H, Gong Y, et al: The clinical feasibility and effect of online cone beam computer tomography-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 90:221–227. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Mongioj V, Orlandi E, Palazzi M, Deponti E, Marzia F, Stucchi C, Sangalli C, Fallai C, Zonca G, Olmi P and Pignoli E: Set-up errors analyses in IMRT treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma to evaluate time trends, PTV and PRV margins. Acta Oncol. 50:61–71. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Dionisi F, Palazzi MF, Bracco F, Brambilla MG, Carbonini C, Asnaghi DD, Monti AF and Torresin A: Set-up errors and planning target volume margins in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: A clinical study of image guidance with on-line cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Clin Oncol. 18:418–427. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Kapanen M, Laaksomaa M, Tulijoki T, Peltola S, Wigren T, Hyodynmaa S and Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL: Estimation of adequate setup margins and threshold for position errors requiring immediate attention in head and neck cancer radiotherapy based on 2D image guidance. Radiat Oncol. 8:2122013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Anjanappa M, Rafi M, Bhasi S, Kumar R, Thommachan KC, Bhattacharya T and Ramadas K: Setup uncertainties and PTV margins at different anatomical levels in intensity modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 22:396–401. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Kron T: Reduction of margins in external beam radiotherapy. J Med Phys. 33:41–42. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI