Three‐dimensional MRI‐based treatment planning approach for non‐invasive ocular proton therapy
Purpose To develop a high‐resolution three‐dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐based treatment planning approach for uveal melanomas (UM) in proton therapy. Materials/methods For eight patients with UM, a segmentation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) was perfor...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2021-03, Vol.48 (3), p.1315-1326 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1326 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1315 |
container_title | Medical physics (Lancaster) |
container_volume | 48 |
creator | Fleury, E. Trnková, P. Erdal, E. Hassan, M. Stoel, B. Jaarma‐Coes, M. Luyten, G. Herault, J. Webb, A. Beenakker, J.‐W. Pignol, J.‐P. Hoogeman, M. |
description | Purpose
To develop a high‐resolution three‐dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐based treatment planning approach for uveal melanomas (UM) in proton therapy.
Materials/methods
For eight patients with UM, a segmentation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) was performed on T1‐ and T2‐weighted 7 Tesla MRI image data to reconstruct the patient MR‐eye. An extended contour was defined with a 2.5‐mm isotropic margin derived from the GTV. A broad beam algorithm, which we have called πDose, was implemented to calculate relative proton absorbed doses to the ipsilateral OARs. Clinically favorable gazing angles of the treated eye were assessed by calculating a global weighted‐sum objective function, which set penalties for OARs and extreme gazing angles. An optimizer, which we have named OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool, was developed to tune the parameters of the functions for sparing critical‐OARs.
Results
In total, 441 gazing angles were simulated for every patient. Target coverage including margins was achieved in all the cases (V95% > 95%). Over the whole gazing angles solutions space, maximum dose (Dmax) to the optic nerve and the macula, and mean doses (Dmean) to the lens, the ciliary body and the sclera were calculated. A forward optimization was applied by OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool in three different prioritizations: iso‐weighted, optic nerve prioritized, and macula prioritized. In each, the function values were depicted in a selection tool to select the optimal gazing angle(s). For example, patient 4 had a T2 equatorial tumor. The optimization applied for the straight gazing angle resulted in objective function values of 0.46 (iso‐weighted situation), 0.90 (optic nerve prioritization) and 0.08 (macula prioritization) demonstrating the impact of that angle in different clinical approaches.
Conclusions
The feasibility and suitability of a 3D MRI‐based treatment planning approach have been successfully tested on a cohort of eight patients diagnosed with UM. Moreover, a gaze‐angle trade‐off dose optimization with respect to OARs sparing has been developed. Further validation of the whole treatment process is the next step in the goal to achieve both a non‐invasive and a personalized proton therapy treatment. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/mp.14665 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7986198</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2471467628</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4105-f48b05c6918db05fea24b1747bbb8cdd581759049501c5a793e9de2b15871b793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQxq0KVJY_Ek9Q-dhLFjux4_hSCSGgSCBQRc-W7UxYo8QOdnbR3voIfUaepIYFRA_MxWPPT9-M50PokJI5JaQ8GsY5ZXXNv6BZyURVsJLILTQjRLKiZITvoN2U7gkhdcXJV7RT5agrIWeovV1EgKc_f1s3gE8ueN3jq18X-cXoBC2eIugplyY89tp75--wHscYtF3gLkTsg8-s8yud3ApwsMteR5yBKXg8LSDqcb2PtjvdJzh4PffQ77PT25OfxeX1-cXJ8WVhGSW86FhjCLe1pE2bkw50yQwVTBhjGtu2vKGCS8IkJ9RyLWQFsoXSUN4IavJ1D_3Y6I5LM0Br89RR92qMbtBxrYJ26v-Kdwt1F1ZKyKamsskC318FYnhYQprU4JKFPv8cwjKpvNy8Z1GXH1AbQ0oRuvc2lKhnU9QwqhdTMvrt41jv4JsLGSg2wKPrYf2pkLq62Qj-A9G8mpo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2471467628</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Three‐dimensional MRI‐based treatment planning approach for non‐invasive ocular proton therapy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Fleury, E. ; Trnková, P. ; Erdal, E. ; Hassan, M. ; Stoel, B. ; Jaarma‐Coes, M. ; Luyten, G. ; Herault, J. ; Webb, A. ; Beenakker, J.‐W. ; Pignol, J.‐P. ; Hoogeman, M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fleury, E. ; Trnková, P. ; Erdal, E. ; Hassan, M. ; Stoel, B. ; Jaarma‐Coes, M. ; Luyten, G. ; Herault, J. ; Webb, A. ; Beenakker, J.‐W. ; Pignol, J.‐P. ; Hoogeman, M.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To develop a high‐resolution three‐dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐based treatment planning approach for uveal melanomas (UM) in proton therapy.
Materials/methods
For eight patients with UM, a segmentation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) was performed on T1‐ and T2‐weighted 7 Tesla MRI image data to reconstruct the patient MR‐eye. An extended contour was defined with a 2.5‐mm isotropic margin derived from the GTV. A broad beam algorithm, which we have called πDose, was implemented to calculate relative proton absorbed doses to the ipsilateral OARs. Clinically favorable gazing angles of the treated eye were assessed by calculating a global weighted‐sum objective function, which set penalties for OARs and extreme gazing angles. An optimizer, which we have named OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool, was developed to tune the parameters of the functions for sparing critical‐OARs.
Results
In total, 441 gazing angles were simulated for every patient. Target coverage including margins was achieved in all the cases (V95% > 95%). Over the whole gazing angles solutions space, maximum dose (Dmax) to the optic nerve and the macula, and mean doses (Dmean) to the lens, the ciliary body and the sclera were calculated. A forward optimization was applied by OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool in three different prioritizations: iso‐weighted, optic nerve prioritized, and macula prioritized. In each, the function values were depicted in a selection tool to select the optimal gazing angle(s). For example, patient 4 had a T2 equatorial tumor. The optimization applied for the straight gazing angle resulted in objective function values of 0.46 (iso‐weighted situation), 0.90 (optic nerve prioritization) and 0.08 (macula prioritization) demonstrating the impact of that angle in different clinical approaches.
Conclusions
The feasibility and suitability of a 3D MRI‐based treatment planning approach have been successfully tested on a cohort of eight patients diagnosed with UM. Moreover, a gaze‐angle trade‐off dose optimization with respect to OARs sparing has been developed. Further validation of the whole treatment process is the next step in the goal to achieve both a non‐invasive and a personalized proton therapy treatment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mp.14665</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33336379</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley and Sons Inc</publisher><subject>EMERGING IMAGING AND THERAPY MODALITIES ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; MRI ; Organs at Risk ; Proton Therapy ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted ; uveal melanoma ; Uveal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Uveal Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2021-03, Vol.48 (3), p.1315-1326</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4105-f48b05c6918db05fea24b1747bbb8cdd581759049501c5a793e9de2b15871b793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4105-f48b05c6918db05fea24b1747bbb8cdd581759049501c5a793e9de2b15871b793</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8614-4624</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fmp.14665$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fmp.14665$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33336379$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fleury, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trnková, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erdal, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassan, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoel, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaarma‐Coes, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luyten, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herault, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webb, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beenakker, J.‐W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pignol, J.‐P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoogeman, M.</creatorcontrib><title>Three‐dimensional MRI‐based treatment planning approach for non‐invasive ocular proton therapy</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose
To develop a high‐resolution three‐dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐based treatment planning approach for uveal melanomas (UM) in proton therapy.
Materials/methods
For eight patients with UM, a segmentation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) was performed on T1‐ and T2‐weighted 7 Tesla MRI image data to reconstruct the patient MR‐eye. An extended contour was defined with a 2.5‐mm isotropic margin derived from the GTV. A broad beam algorithm, which we have called πDose, was implemented to calculate relative proton absorbed doses to the ipsilateral OARs. Clinically favorable gazing angles of the treated eye were assessed by calculating a global weighted‐sum objective function, which set penalties for OARs and extreme gazing angles. An optimizer, which we have named OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool, was developed to tune the parameters of the functions for sparing critical‐OARs.
Results
In total, 441 gazing angles were simulated for every patient. Target coverage including margins was achieved in all the cases (V95% > 95%). Over the whole gazing angles solutions space, maximum dose (Dmax) to the optic nerve and the macula, and mean doses (Dmean) to the lens, the ciliary body and the sclera were calculated. A forward optimization was applied by OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool in three different prioritizations: iso‐weighted, optic nerve prioritized, and macula prioritized. In each, the function values were depicted in a selection tool to select the optimal gazing angle(s). For example, patient 4 had a T2 equatorial tumor. The optimization applied for the straight gazing angle resulted in objective function values of 0.46 (iso‐weighted situation), 0.90 (optic nerve prioritization) and 0.08 (macula prioritization) demonstrating the impact of that angle in different clinical approaches.
Conclusions
The feasibility and suitability of a 3D MRI‐based treatment planning approach have been successfully tested on a cohort of eight patients diagnosed with UM. Moreover, a gaze‐angle trade‐off dose optimization with respect to OARs sparing has been developed. Further validation of the whole treatment process is the next step in the goal to achieve both a non‐invasive and a personalized proton therapy treatment.</description><subject>EMERGING IMAGING AND THERAPY MODALITIES</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Organs at Risk</subject><subject>Proton Therapy</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>uveal melanoma</subject><subject>Uveal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Uveal Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQxq0KVJY_Ek9Q-dhLFjux4_hSCSGgSCBQRc-W7UxYo8QOdnbR3voIfUaepIYFRA_MxWPPT9-M50PokJI5JaQ8GsY5ZXXNv6BZyURVsJLILTQjRLKiZITvoN2U7gkhdcXJV7RT5agrIWeovV1EgKc_f1s3gE8ueN3jq18X-cXoBC2eIugplyY89tp75--wHscYtF3gLkTsg8-s8yud3ApwsMteR5yBKXg8LSDqcb2PtjvdJzh4PffQ77PT25OfxeX1-cXJ8WVhGSW86FhjCLe1pE2bkw50yQwVTBhjGtu2vKGCS8IkJ9RyLWQFsoXSUN4IavJ1D_3Y6I5LM0Br89RR92qMbtBxrYJ26v-Kdwt1F1ZKyKamsskC318FYnhYQprU4JKFPv8cwjKpvNy8Z1GXH1AbQ0oRuvc2lKhnU9QwqhdTMvrt41jv4JsLGSg2wKPrYf2pkLq62Qj-A9G8mpo</recordid><startdate>202103</startdate><enddate>202103</enddate><creator>Fleury, E.</creator><creator>Trnková, P.</creator><creator>Erdal, E.</creator><creator>Hassan, M.</creator><creator>Stoel, B.</creator><creator>Jaarma‐Coes, M.</creator><creator>Luyten, G.</creator><creator>Herault, J.</creator><creator>Webb, A.</creator><creator>Beenakker, J.‐W.</creator><creator>Pignol, J.‐P.</creator><creator>Hoogeman, M.</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-4624</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202103</creationdate><title>Three‐dimensional MRI‐based treatment planning approach for non‐invasive ocular proton therapy</title><author>Fleury, E. ; Trnková, P. ; Erdal, E. ; Hassan, M. ; Stoel, B. ; Jaarma‐Coes, M. ; Luyten, G. ; Herault, J. ; Webb, A. ; Beenakker, J.‐W. ; Pignol, J.‐P. ; Hoogeman, M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4105-f48b05c6918db05fea24b1747bbb8cdd581759049501c5a793e9de2b15871b793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>EMERGING IMAGING AND THERAPY MODALITIES</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Organs at Risk</topic><topic>Proton Therapy</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>uveal melanoma</topic><topic>Uveal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Uveal Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fleury, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trnková, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erdal, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hassan, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoel, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaarma‐Coes, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luyten, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herault, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Webb, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beenakker, J.‐W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pignol, J.‐P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoogeman, M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fleury, E.</au><au>Trnková, P.</au><au>Erdal, E.</au><au>Hassan, M.</au><au>Stoel, B.</au><au>Jaarma‐Coes, M.</au><au>Luyten, G.</au><au>Herault, J.</au><au>Webb, A.</au><au>Beenakker, J.‐W.</au><au>Pignol, J.‐P.</au><au>Hoogeman, M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Three‐dimensional MRI‐based treatment planning approach for non‐invasive ocular proton therapy</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2021-03</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1315</spage><epage>1326</epage><pages>1315-1326</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To develop a high‐resolution three‐dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐based treatment planning approach for uveal melanomas (UM) in proton therapy.
Materials/methods
For eight patients with UM, a segmentation of the gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) was performed on T1‐ and T2‐weighted 7 Tesla MRI image data to reconstruct the patient MR‐eye. An extended contour was defined with a 2.5‐mm isotropic margin derived from the GTV. A broad beam algorithm, which we have called πDose, was implemented to calculate relative proton absorbed doses to the ipsilateral OARs. Clinically favorable gazing angles of the treated eye were assessed by calculating a global weighted‐sum objective function, which set penalties for OARs and extreme gazing angles. An optimizer, which we have named OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool, was developed to tune the parameters of the functions for sparing critical‐OARs.
Results
In total, 441 gazing angles were simulated for every patient. Target coverage including margins was achieved in all the cases (V95% > 95%). Over the whole gazing angles solutions space, maximum dose (Dmax) to the optic nerve and the macula, and mean doses (Dmean) to the lens, the ciliary body and the sclera were calculated. A forward optimization was applied by OPT’im‐Eye‐Tool in three different prioritizations: iso‐weighted, optic nerve prioritized, and macula prioritized. In each, the function values were depicted in a selection tool to select the optimal gazing angle(s). For example, patient 4 had a T2 equatorial tumor. The optimization applied for the straight gazing angle resulted in objective function values of 0.46 (iso‐weighted situation), 0.90 (optic nerve prioritization) and 0.08 (macula prioritization) demonstrating the impact of that angle in different clinical approaches.
Conclusions
The feasibility and suitability of a 3D MRI‐based treatment planning approach have been successfully tested on a cohort of eight patients diagnosed with UM. Moreover, a gaze‐angle trade‐off dose optimization with respect to OARs sparing has been developed. Further validation of the whole treatment process is the next step in the goal to achieve both a non‐invasive and a personalized proton therapy treatment.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons Inc</pub><pmid>33336379</pmid><doi>10.1002/mp.14665</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-4624</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0094-2405 |
ispartof | Medical physics (Lancaster), 2021-03, Vol.48 (3), p.1315-1326 |
issn | 0094-2405 2473-4209 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7986198 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | EMERGING IMAGING AND THERAPY MODALITIES Humans Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI Organs at Risk Proton Therapy Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted uveal melanoma Uveal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Uveal Neoplasms - radiotherapy |
title | Three‐dimensional MRI‐based treatment planning approach for non‐invasive ocular proton therapy |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T00%3A57%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Three%E2%80%90dimensional%20MRI%E2%80%90based%20treatment%20planning%20approach%20for%20non%E2%80%90invasive%20ocular%20proton%20therapy&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Fleury,%20E.&rft.date=2021-03&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1315&rft.epage=1326&rft.pages=1315-1326&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mp.14665&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2471467628%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2471467628&rft_id=info:pmid/33336379&rfr_iscdi=true |