Analysis of nodal coverage utilizing image guided radiation therapy for primary gynecologic tumor volumes

Purpose: To evaluate radiation dose delivered to pelvic lymph nodes, if daily Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) was implemented with treatment shifts based on the primary site (primary clinical target volume [CTV]). Our secondary goal was to compare dosimetric coverage with patient outcomes.

Materials and methods: A total of 10 female patients with gynecologic malignancies were evaluated retrospectively after completion of definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to their pelvic lymph nodes and primary tumor site. IGRT consisted of daily kilovoltage computed tomography (CT)-on-rails imaging fused with initial planning scans for position verification. The initial plan was created using Varian׳s Eclipse treatment planning software. Patients were treated with a median radiation dose of 45Gy (range: 37.5 to 50Gy) to the primary volume and 45Gy (range: 45 to 64.8Gy) to nodal structures. One IGRT scan per week was randomly selected from each patient׳s treatment course and re-planned on the Eclipse treatment planning station. CTVs were recreated by fusion on the IGRT image series, and the patient׳s treatment plan was applied to the new image set to calculate delivered dose. We evaluated the minimum, maximum, and 95% dose coverage for primary and nodal structures. Reconstructed primary tumor volumes were recreated within 4.7% of initial planning volume (0.9% to 8.6%), and reconstructed nodal volumes were recreated to within 2.9% of initial planning volume (0.01% to 5.5%).

Results: Dosimetric parameters averaged less than 10% (range: 1% to 9%) of the original planned dose (45Gy) for primary and nodal volumes on all patients (n = 10). For all patients, ≥99.3% of the primary tumor volume received ≥ 95% the prescribed dose (V95%) and the average minimum dose was 96.1% of the prescribed dose. In evaluating nodal CTV coverage, ≥ 99.8% of the volume received ≥ 95% the prescribed dose and the average minimum dose was 93%. In evaluating individual IGRT sessions, we found that 6 patients had an estimated minimal nodal CTV dose less than 90% (range: 78 to 99%) of that planned. With a median follow-up of 42.5 months, 2 patients experienced systemic disease progression at an average of 19.6 months. One patient was found to have a local or regional failure with an average follow-up of 42 months.

Conclusion: Using only 3 dimensional IGRT corrections in gynecological radiation allows excellent coverage of the primary target volume and good average nodal CTV coverage. If IGRT corrections are based on alignment to the primary tumor volume, and is only able to be corrected in 3 degrees, this can create situations in which nodal volumes may be under dosed. Utilizing multiple IGRT sessions appears to average out dose discrepancies over the course of treatment. The implication of underdosing in a single IGRT session needs further evaluation in future studies. Based on the concern of minimum dose to a nodal target volume, these findings may signal caution when using IGRT and IMRT in gynecological radiation patients. Possible techniques to overcome this situation may include averaging shifts between tumor and nodal volume, use of a treatment couch with 6° of freedom, deformable registration, or adaptive planning.