Introduction
Three-dimensional radiation therapy treatment
planning (3DRTTP) systems have spurred the implementation of external
beam radiation therapy techniques, in which the high-dose region can
be conformed much more closely to the cancer patients target
volume than was previously possible, thus reducing the volume of
normal tissues receiving a high dose. This form of external beam
irradiation is referred to as three-dimensional conformal radiation
therapy (3DCRT), and its development and clinical use are discussed
in considerable detail elsewhere.[1,2] Several groups have already
reported on their early clinical experience with 3DCRT for the
treatment of prostate cancer, and the results are encouraging.[3-5]
Three-dimensional planning is not just an addition to the current
radiation oncology planning process, but rather represents a radical
change in practice, particularly for the radiation oncologist. The
two-dimensional (2D) treatment planning approach emphasizes the use
of a conventional simulator for designing beam portals, based on
standardized beam arrangement techniques applied to whole classes of
comparable patients. Three-dimensional treatment planning emphasizes
a virtual simulation, image-based approach for objectively defining
tumor and critical structure volumes for the individual patient.
The use of the terms 2D and 3D as descriptors for the planning
process has caused some confusion in the radiation oncology
community. One should recognize that planning the cancer
patients treatment is, and always has been, a 3D problem, and
2D planning refers to the process and tools used. Three-dimensional
treatment planning does not require the use of noncoplanar
beams, a common misconception. Noncoplanar beams have been used for
years in selected sites such as breast cancer, even though 2D
treatment planning systems could not accurately account for the
geometry. Clearly, noncoplanar breast tangential fields represented
on a 2DRTTP system by a single, or at most a few, slices cannot be
considered a 3D treatment plan. Radiation oncologists will be able to
transition to 3D planning much more easily if they approach 3DRTTP as
a new treatment planning process, emphasizing image-based target
volume design rather than as a reflection of a particular beam configuration.
One of the important factors contributing to the current 3D process
is the standardization of nomenclature, published in the
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU)
Report 50.[6] This report has provided a language and a way of
thinking about the problem for defining the volume of known tumor,
suspected microscopic spread, and marginal volumes necessary to
account for set-up variations and organ and patient motion. Figure
1 illustrates the ICRU 50 formal definitions for the gross tumor
volume, clinical target volume, planning target volume, and organs at
risk. Some brief discussion on the use of the ICRU 50 methodology is
presented in a later section. Also, the reader is referred to the
literature for more details regarding the use of ICRU 50 nomenclature.[7,8]
Table 1 lists the various tasks
that make up the 3D planning dose and delivery process in its current
technology state. 3DCRT treatment plans generally use an increased
number of radiation beams that are angled and shaped to conform to
the planning target volume using the 3DRTTP systems
beams-eye view and rooms-eye view displays (Figures
2A and 2B). To improve the conformity of the dose distribution,
conventional beam modifiers (eg, wedges or compensating filters) are
sometimes used. This form of 3DCRT must now be referred to as
traditional or conventional 3DCRT, because a
more advanced form of 3DCRT, called intensity-modulated radiation
therapy, is already emerging. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy
can achieve even greater conformity by optimally modulating the
radiation beam intensity (fluence) throughout each treatment field.[9]
These advances in radiation oncology technology are truly exciting
and are occurring at a very rapid pace. However, as the
implementation of 3D planning and dose delivery systems becomes more
widespread, the radiation oncology team must understand that ensuring
the safety and accuracy of this new modality is more difficult (in
its current development state) than with the standard 2D process.
Therefore, it is essential that the radiation oncology team stay well
informed on the new technologies and maintain a strong commitment to
a rigorous quality assurance program when this new treatment modality
is implemented in the clinic. This article will update a previous
review of advances in 3DRTTP and dose delivery.[10]
Advances In 3D Treatment Planning
Three-dimensional RTTP systems are currently going through a rapid
transition period, having emerged from university-developed systems
to Food and Drug Administration-approved commercially available
systems in the early 1990s. These first-generation commercial systems
provide specific functionality, such as virtual simulation or 3D
external beam dose planning. Such limited functionality has resulted
in clinics needing multiple treatment planning systems to provide for
various high-tech treatment modalities, like virtual simulation, 3D
external beam dose planning, high-dose-rate brachytherapy, prostate
seed implant, and stereotactic radiosurgery. This is clearly not very
satisfactory, resulting in increased costs and inefficiencies.
Over the next few years, the treatment planning system manufacturers
will begin to combine these planning programs into a single
integrated image-based 3DRTTP system that provides planning
capability for multiple treatment modalities, resulting in
considerable cost savings. In addition, we should soon see improved
efficiencies based on the use of intranets. An intranet
is a special type of internet-related technology with the potential
to dramatically improve a radiation oncology clinics ability to
use 3DRTTP. A radiation oncology clinics intranet will make use
of client server (and browser) technology that will provide
easy-to-use Windows-like displays, permitting users to easily
navigate through multiple treatment planning and other clinical
applications, data, and graphical displays using point-and-click
technology. However, prior to further discussion on information
technology, it is important to describe some of the improved features
now readily available on 3DRTTP systems.
Imaging for 3D Planning
The development of powerful but relatively inexpensive computer
systems has allowed the integration of computed tomography
(CT)based target volume and normal tissue definition with the
process of radiation therapy treatment planning, creating an entirely
new device, the CT simulator. The CT simulator differs in both
purpose and function from the conventional simulator.[11,12] A
typical CT simulation uses a helical CT scanner with localization
software, a patient registration and laser marking system, and a
dedicated computer workstation for virtual simulation and generation
of digitally reconstructed radiographs.
Although the current generation of CT simulators provides powerful
new 3D capabilities, several improvements in the hardware are still
needed for treatment planning purposes because the CT scanner
currently used was designed for diagnostic radiology use.
Specifically, a larger CT gantry aperture is needed. Current scanners
have a 70-cm diameter, which limits some treatment set-ups. Also, the
CT reconstruction size needs to be larger (currently only a 52-cm
diameter is provided). CT simulator couch tops that mimic the
geometry of a medical linear accelerator are also needed, as are
improved registration systems for going from the real patient to the
virtual patient and then back to the real patient for treatment.
Other issues that continue to be of concern are data storage and data
transfer. Also, a satisfactory process for quantitating the effects
of respiratory organ motion or other organ movements has not yet been
developed for CT simulation.
For effective use of CT simulation, the radiation oncologist must
become familiar with CT cross-sectional anatomy and with the
appropriate use of CT contrast materials that aid in the
identification of the gross tumor volume and organs at risk. When CT
simulation/3DRTTP is first introduced in the clinic, assistance from
a diagnostic radiologist in contouring the organs at risk and gross
tumor volume/clinical target volumes can be invaluable. However,
identifying normal tissues and tumor on a treatment-planning CT can
be difficult even for an experienced diagnostic radiologist, as the
planning CT images are typically acquired in a nonstandard diagnostic
patient position. Since 3D planning requires the definition of target
volumes and normal tissue on a CT scan, strong consideration should
be given to incorporating image-based, cross-sectional anatomy
training into radiation oncology residency training programs. In the
interim, short courses on image-based anatomy are needed for
practicing radiation oncologists.
While CT is the principal source of image data for 3DRTTP, there is a
growing demand to incorporate the complementary information available
from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The sharply demonstrated
tumorsoft-tissue interface often seen on an MRI scan in tumors
such as in the brain can be used to better define the gross tumor
volume.[13] Several groups have also demonstrated the value of MRI in
distinguishing the prostate gland from surrounding normal
structures.[14,15] In addition, functional imaging modalities such as
single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron
emission tomography (PET) will likely prove to be important in both
the target definition phase of treatment planning and also in the
follow-up studies needed to assess efficacy. For example, Marks et al
have reported on the use of SPECT lung perfusion scans to determine
functioning regions of the lung.[16,17] The functional lung volume
data are used in calculating dose-volume histograms rather than the
CT-defined anatomy and are referred to as functional dose-volume
histograms. Radiation beams are planned that minimize irradiation of
these functioning areas. Similarly, PET imaging is used to aid in
defining the patients lung cancer gross tumor volume/clinical
target volumes. However, use of multimodality imaging in the
treatment planning process brings with it the need for better image
registration tools.
1. Purdy JA, Emami B (eds): 3-D Radiation Treatment Planning and
Conformal Therapy. Madison, Wis, Medical Physics Publishing, 1995.
2. Meyer JL, Purdy JA (eds): 3-D Conformal Radiotherapy: A New Era in
the Irradiation of Cancer. Basel, Switzerland, Karger. 1996.
3. Hanks GE, Hanlon AL, Schultheiss TE, et al: Dose escalation with
3D conformal treatment: Five-year outcomes, treatment optimization,
and future directions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:501-510, 1998.
4. Sandler HM, McLaughlin PW, Ten Haken RY, et al: Three-dimensional
conformal radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: Low risk
of chronic rectal morbidity observed in a large series of patients.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33:797-801, 1995.
5. Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, Gaudin PB, et al: Dose escalation with
three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy affects the outcome in
prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41:491-500, 1998.
6. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements.
Report No. 50: Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon Beam
Therapy. Bethesda, Md, International Commission on Radiation Units
and Measurements, 1993.
7. Purdy JA: Volume and dose specification, treatment evaluation, and
reporting for 3D conformal radiation therapy, in Palta J, Mackie TR
(eds): Teletherapy: Present and Future, pp 235-251. College Park, Md,
Advanced Medical Publishing, 1996.
8. Purdy JA: Three-dimensional physics and treatment planning, in
Perez CA, Brady LW (eds): Principles and Practice of Radiation
Oncology, pp 343-369. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1997.
9. Sternick ES (ed): The Theory and Practice of Intensity-Modulated
Radiation Therapy. Madison, WI, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1997.
10. Purdy JA: Advances in three-dimensional treatment planning and
conformal dose delivery. Semin Oncol 24:655-671, 1997.
11. Coia LR, Schultheiss TE, Hanks G (eds): A Practical Guide to CT
Simulation. Madison, Wis, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1995.
12. Perez CA, Purdy JA, Harms WB, et al: Three-dimensional treatment
planning and conformal radiation therapy: Preliminary evaluation.
Radiother Oncol 36:32-43, 1995.
13. Austin-Seymour M, Chen GT, Rosenman J, et al: Tumor and target
delineation: Current research and future challenges. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 33:1041-1052, 1995.
14. Lau HY, Kagawa K, Lee WR, et al: Short communication: CT-MRI
image fusion for 3D conformal prostate radiotherapy: Use in patients
with altered pelvic anatomy. Br J Radiol 69:1165-1170, 1996.
15. Roach M III, Faillace-Akazawa P, Malfatti C, et al: Prostate
volumes defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized
tomographic scans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35:1011-1018, 1996.
16. Marks LB, Spencer DP, Sherouse GW, et al: The role of
three-dimensional functional lung imaging in radiation treatment
planning: The functional dose-volume histogram. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 33:65-75, 1995.
17. Marks LB, Munley MT, Spencer DP, et al: Quantification of
radiation-induced regional lung injury with perfusion imaging. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:399-409, 1997.
18. Kessler ML, Pitluck S, Petti P, et al: Integration of
multimodality imaging data for radiotherapy treatment planning. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21:1653-1667, 1991.
19. Sailer S, Rosenman JG, Soltys S, et al: Improving treatment
planning accuracy through multimodality imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 35:117-124, 1996.
20. Rosenman JG, Miller EP, Tracton G, et al: Image registration: An
essential part of radiation therapy treatment planning. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 40:197-205, 1998.
21. Meyer CR, Boes JL, Kim B, et al: Demonstration of accuracy and
clinical versatility of mutual information for automatic
multimodality image fusion using affine and thin-plate spline warped
geometric deformations. Med Image Anal 1:195-206, 1997.
22. Wells WM III, Viola P, Atsumi H, et al: Multi-modal volume
registration by maximization of mutual information. Med Image Anal
1:35-51, 1996.
23. Woods RP, Mazziotta JC, Cherry SR: MRI-PET registration with
automated algorithm. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17:536-546, 1993.
24. Balter J, Ten Haken R, Lam K: Immobilization and set-up
verification, in Palta J, Mackie TR (eds): Teletherapy: Present and
Future, pp 471-494. College Park, Md, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1996.
25. Bedford JL, Shentall GS: A digital method for computing target
margins in radiotherapy. Med Phys 25:224-231, 1998.
26. Pelizzari CA, Grzeszczuk R, Cheng GTY, et al: Volumetric
visualization of anatomy for treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 34:205-211, 1996.
27. Drebin R, Carpenter L, Hanrahan P: Volume rendering. Comp Graph
22:65-74, 1988.
28. Purdy JA: Photon dose calculations for three-dimensional
radiation treatment planning. Semin Radiat Oncol 2:235-245, 1992.
29. Mackie TR, Reckwerdt P, McNutt T, et al: Photon beam dose
computations, in Palta J, Mackie TR (eds): Teletherapy: Present and
Future, pp 103-136. College Park, Md, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1996.
30. Rogers DW, Faddegon BA, Ding GX, et al: BEAM: A Monte Carlo code
to simulate radiotherapy treatment units. Med Phys 22:503-524, 1995.
31. DeMareo JJ, Solberg TD, Smathers JB: A CT-based Monte Carlo
simulation tool for dosimetry planning and analysis. Med Phys
25:1-11, 1998.
32. Hartmann Siantar CL, Bergstrom PM, Chandler WP, et al: Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratorys PEREGRINE Project, in Leavitt
DD, Starkschall G (eds): XII International Conference on the Use of
Computers in Radiation Therapy. pp 19-22. Salt Lake City, Utah,
Medical Physics Publishing, 1997.
33. Holmes MA, Mackie TR, Sohn W, et al: The application of
correlated sampling to the computation of electron beam dose
distributions in heterogeneous phantoms using the Monte Carlo method.
Phys Med Biol 38:675-688, 1993.
34. Neuenschwander H, Mackie TR, Reckwerdt PJ: MMCA
high-performance Monte Carlo code for electron beam treatment
planning. Phys Med Biol 40:543-574, 1995.
35. Gustafsson A, Lind BK, Svensson R, et al: Simultaneous
optimization of dynamic multileaf collimation and scanning patterns
or compensation filters using a generalized pencil beam algorithm.
Med Phys 22:1141-1156, 1995.
36. Bortfeld T, Burkelbach J, Boesecke R, et al: Three-dimensional
solution of the inverse problem in conformation radiotherapy, in
Breit A (ed): Advanced Radiation Therapy: Tumor Response Monitoring
and Treatment Planning, pp 503-508. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
37. Burman C, Chui CS, Kutcher G, et al: Planning, delivery, and
quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy using dynamic
multileaf collimator: A strategy for large-scale implementation for
the treatment of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 39:863-873, 1997.
38. Webb S: Inverse planning for IMRT: The role of simulated
annealing, in Sternick ES (ed): The Theory and Practice of Intensity
Modulated Radiation Therapy, pp 51-73. Madison, Wis, Advanced Medical
Publishing, 1997.
39. Mohan R: Intensity modulation in radiotherapy, in Palta J, Mackie
TR (eds): Teletherapy: Present and Future, pp 761-792. College Park,
Md, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1996.
40. Rosen II: Treatment planning for IMRT, in Sternick ES (ed): The
Theory and Practice of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, pp
37-49. Madison, Wis, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1997.
41. Purdy JA (ed): Data management in radiation oncology. Semin
Radiat Oncol 7(suppl 1):1-94, 1997.
42. Purdy JA, Harms WB, Michalski J, et al: Multi-institutional
clinical trials: 3-D conformal radiotherapy quality assurance, in
Meyer JL, Purdy JA (eds): 3-D Conformal Radiotherapy: A New Era in
the Irradiation of Cancer, pp 255-263. Basel, Switzerland, Karger, 1996.
43. Bosch WR, Lakanen TL, Kahn MG, et al: An image/clinical database
for multi-institutional clinical trials in 3D conformal radiation
therapy, in Leavitt DD, Starkschall G (eds): XII International
Conference on the Use of Computers in Radiation Therapy, pp 455-457.
Salt Lake City, Medical Physics Publishing, 1997.
44. Harms WB Sr, Bosch WR, Purdy JA: An interim digital data exchange
standard for multi-institutional 3D conforinal radiation therapy
trials, in Leavitt DD, Starkschall G (eds): XII International
Conference on the Use of Computers in Radiation Therapy, pp 465-468.
Salt Lake City, Medical Physics Publishing, 1997.
45. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA): Digital
imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM). Radiotherapy Objects,
suppl 11. Washington, DC, NEMA, 1987.
46. Boyer AL: Present and future developments in radiotherapy
treatment units. Semin Radiat Oncol 5:146-155, 1995.
47. Fraass BA, MeShan CL, Kessler ML: Computer-controlled treatment
delivery. Semin Radiat Oncol 5:77-85, 1995.
48. Mackie TR, Holmes T, Swerdloff S, et al: Tomotherapy: A new
concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy. Med Phys
20:1709-1719, 1993.
49. Carol MP: Integrated 3D conformal planning/multivane intensity
modulating delivery system for radiotherapy, in Purdy JA, Emami B
(eds): 3D Radiation Treatment Planning and Conformal Therapy, pp
435-445. Madison, Wis, Medical Physics Publishing, 1995.
50. Grant W: Experience with intensity modulated beam delivery, in
Palta J, Mackie TR (eds): Teletherapy: Present and Future, pp
793-804. College Park, Md, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1996.
51. Low DA, Mutic S, Dempsey JF, et al: Quantitative dosimetric
verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system. Radiother Oncol
49:305-316, 1998.
52. Verellen D, Linthout N, van den Berge D, et al: Initial
experience with intensity-modulated conformal radiation therapy for
treatment of the head and neck region. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
39:99-114, 1997.
53. Tsai JS, Wazer DE, Ling MN, et al: Dosimetric verification of the
dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy of 92 patients. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:1213-1230, 1998.
54. Mutic S, Low DA: Whole-body dose from tomotherapy delivery. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42:229-232, 1998.
55. Followill D, Geis P, Boyer A: Estimates of whole-body dose
equivalent produced by beam intensity modulated conformal therapy.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:667-672, 1997.
56. Low DA, Mutic S, Gerber RL, et al: The quantitative verification
of computer-controlled intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose
planning and deliveryInitial experience, in Leavitt DD,
Starkschall G (eds): XII International Conference on the Use of
Computers in Radiation Therapy, pp 410-413. Salt Lake City, Medical
Physics Publishing, 1997.
57. Mackie TR: Tomotherapy, in Leavitt DD, Starkschall G (eds): XII
International Conference on the Use of Computers in Radiation
Therapy, pp 9-12. Salt Lake City, Medical Physics Publishing, 1997.
58. Convery DJ, Rosenbloom M: The generation of intensity-modulated
fields for conformal radiotherapy by dynamic collimation. Phys Med
Biol 37:1359-1374, 1992.
59. Bortfeld T, Boyer AL, Schlegel W, et al: Realization and
verification of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with
modulated fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30:899-908, 1994.
60. Spirou SV, Chui CS: Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by
dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med Phys 21:1031-1041, 1994.
61. Ling CC, Burman C, Chui CS, et al: Conformal radiation treatment
of prostate cancer using inversely-planned intensity-modulated photon
beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 35:721-730, 1996.
62. Bortfeld T, Kahler DL, Waldron TJ, et al: X-ray field
compensation with multileaf collimators. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
28:723-730, 1994.
63. Yu CX: Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf
collimation: An alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol
40:1435-1449, 1995.
64. Yu C, Symons MJ, Du MN, et al: A method for implementing dynamic
photon beam intensity modulation using independent jaws and a
multileaf collimator. Phys Med Biol 40:769-787, 1995.
65. Yu CX. Intensity modulated arc therapy: A new method for
delivering conformal radiation therapy, in Stemick ES (ed): The
Theory and Practice of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, pp
107-120. Madison, Wis, Advanced Medical Publishing, 1997.
66. Stein J, Hartwig K, Levegrün S, et al: Intensity-modulated
treatments: Compensators vs. multileaf modulation, in Leavitt DD,
Starkschall G (eds): XII International Conference on the Use of
Computers in Radiation Therapy, pp 338-341. Salt Lake City, Medical
Physics Publishing, 1997.
67. Dubal N, Chang S, Cullip T, et al: Intensity modulation for
tangential breast treatment (abstract). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
42:127, 1998.