SU-F-T-519: Is Geometry Based Setup Sufficient for All of the Head and Neck Treatment Cases?: A Feasibility Study Towards the Dose Based Setup

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

This study compares the geometric-based setup (GBS) which is currently used in the clinic to a novel concept of dose-based setup (DBS) of head and neck (H&N) patients using cone beam CT (CBCT) of the day; and evaluates the clinical advantages.

Methods:

Ten H&N patients who underwent re-simulation and re-plan due to noticeable anatomic changes during the course of the treatments were retrospectively reviewed on dosimetric changes in the assumption of no plan modification was performed. RayStation planning system (RaySearch Laboratories AB, Sweden) was used to match (ROI fusion module) between prescribed isodoseline (IDL) in the CBCT imported along with ROIs from re-planned CT and the IDL of original plan (Dose-based setup: DBS). Then, the CBCT plan based on daily setup using the GBS (previously used for a patient) and the DBS CBCT plan recalculated in RayStation compared against the original CT-sim plan.

Results:

Most of patients’ tumor coverage and OAR doses got generally worsen when the CBCT plans were compared with original CT-sim plan with GBS. However, when DBS intervened, the OAR dose and tumor coverage was better than the GBS. For example, one of patients’ daily average doses of right parotid and oral cavity increased to 26% and 36%, respectively from the original plan to the GBS planning. However, it only increased by 13% and 24%, respectively with DBS. GTV D95 coverage also decreased by 16% with GBS, but only 2% decreased with DBS.

Conclusion:

DBS method is superior to GBS to prevent any abrupt dose changes to OARs as well as PTV/CTV or GTV at least for some H&N cases. Since it is not known when the DBS is beneficial to the GBS, a system which enables the on-line DBS may be helpful for better treatment of H&N.

Ancillary