Main Session
Sep 28
PQA 03 - Digital Health Innovation and Informatics, Patient Safety & Quality, and Radiation and Cancer Biology

2588 - Evaluation of Biological Dose DVH Estimates from a Commercially Available DVH Estimation Algorithm for Head and Neck Cancer Proton Radiation Therapy

10:45am - 12:00pm ET
Poster Hall - Exhibit Hall A
Screen: 26
POSTER

Presenter(s)

Brandon Reber, PhD, BS - Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science Rochester, Rochester, MN

B. Reber1, A. Y. K. Foong1, M. Michels2, J. Qian1, N. N. Laack II1, R. J. Brisson1, D. K. Ebner1, T. D. Malouff1, J. Wilson1, M. A. Neben-Wittich1, S. C. Lester1, D. J. Ma1, D. M. Routman1, and S. Shiraishi1; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, WI

Purpose/Objective(s): Proton radiation therapy may have enhanced relative biologic effectiveness based on increased LET at the distal edge of the spread-out Bragg peak. Our goal was to evaluate the accuracy of DVH estimates from a commercially available DVH estimation algorithm compared to ground truth Monte Carlo calculated biological dose that accounts for LET in head and neck cancer patients treated with spot-scanning proton radiation therapy.

Materials/Methods: Eighty-seven bilateral oropharynx cancer patients treated at a large American academic center using spot-scanning proton therapy were identified to construct the DVH estimation model. All subjects had treatment plan biological dose calculated using an in-house, validated Monte Carlo calculation algorithm. The biological dose was used in the DVH estimation model training. Eleven additional patients not included in model training were used to evaluate the accuracy of DVH band estimates. The accuracy of the model was measured by determining if ground truth clinical metrics fell within the model’s DVH estimation bands. DVH metrics included brainstem Dmax and V30%, esophagus Dmean and V55%, larynx Dmean and V50%, mandible Dmax, spinal cord Dmax, and brachial plexus Dmax.

Results: The model's DVH estimate bands accurately captured most delivered clinical DVH metrics. Larynx Dmean and V50% had the most ground truth clinical metrics within DVH estimates with nine out of eleven metrics each within estimate bands. Mandible Dmax had the smallest number of metrics within DVH estimate bands with two out of eleven plans within estimates. However, mandible DVH estimate bands were the smallest of all metrics studied.

Conclusion: The constructed DVH estimation model showed agreement with ground truth DVH metrics for most anatomical structures and DVH metrics studied. DVH estimation models have the potential to estimate biological dose to anatomical structures before time-consuming treatment planning and Monte Carlo calculations have been completed and allow for swift treatment planning objective decision making.

Summary of Validation Set DVH Estimation Results

Metric

Clinical plans with metric values within band estimates

Clinical plans with metric values greater than upper band estimates

Clinical plans with metric values less than lower band estimates

Average band width

Brainstem Dmax

6

1

4

1911 cGy

Brainstem V30%

8

1

2

16 %

Esophagus Dmean

6

3

2

405 cGy

Esophagus V55%

7

4

0

7 %

Larynx Dmean

9

1

1

1246 cGy

Larynx V50%

9

1

1

23 %

Mandible Dmax

3

8

0

425 cGy

Spinal Cord Dmax

4

3

4

675 cGy

Brachial Plexus L Dmax

8

2

1

678 cGy

Brachial Plexus R Dmax

8

2

1

631 cGy

Total

68

26

16

-