Binbin Wu1, Dalong Pang2, Siyuan Lei2, John Gatti2, Michael Tong2, Todd McNutt3, Thomas Kole2, Anatoly Dritschilo2, Sean Collins2. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, USA. Electronic address: binbin.wu@gunet.georgetown.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study is to determine if the overlap-volume histogram (OVH)-driven planning methodology can be adapted to robotic SBRT (CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System) to further minimize the bladder and rectal doses achieved in plans manually-created by clinical planners. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A database containing clinically-delivered, robotic SBRT plans (7.25 Gy/fraction in 36.25 Gy) of 425 patients with localized prostate cancer was used as a cohort to establish an organ's distance-to-dose model. The OVH-driven planning methodology was refined by adding the PTV volume factor to counter the target's dose fall-off effect and incorporated into Multiplan to automate SBRT planning. For validation, automated plans (APs) for 12 new patients were generated, and their achieved dose/volume values were compared to the corresponding manually-created, clinically-delivered plans (CPs). A two-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison with a significance level of p<0.05. RESULTS: PTV's V(36.25 Gy) was comparable: 95.6% in CPs comparing to 95.1% in APs (p=0.2). On average, the refined approach lowered V(18.12 Gy) to the bladder and rectum by 8.2% (p<0.05) and 6.4% (p=0.14). A physician confirmed APs were clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements in APs could further reduce toxicities observed in SBRT for organ-confined prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study is to determine if the overlap-volume histogram (OVH)-driven planning methodology can be adapted to robotic SBRT (CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System) to further minimize the bladder and rectal doses achieved in plans manually-created by clinical planners. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A database containing clinically-delivered, robotic SBRT plans (7.25 Gy/fraction in 36.25 Gy) of 425 patients with localized prostate cancer was used as a cohort to establish an organ's distance-to-dose model. The OVH-driven planning methodology was refined by adding the PTV volume factor to counter the target's dose fall-off effect and incorporated into Multiplan to automate SBRT planning. For validation, automated plans (APs) for 12 new patients were generated, and their achieved dose/volume values were compared to the corresponding manually-created, clinically-delivered plans (CPs). A two-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison with a significance level of p<0.05. RESULTS: PTV's V(36.25 Gy) was comparable: 95.6% in CPs comparing to 95.1% in APs (p=0.2). On average, the refined approach lowered V(18.12 Gy) to the bladder and rectum by 8.2% (p<0.05) and 6.4% (p=0.14). A physician confirmed APs were clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements in APs could further reduce toxicities observed in SBRT for organ-confined prostate cancer.
Authors: Thomas P Kole; Michael Tong; Binbin Wu; Siyuan Lei; Olusola Obayomi-Davies; Leonard N Chen; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; Ellen Yorke; Sean P Collins Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ziwei Feng; Avani D Rao; Zhi Cheng; Eun Ji Shin; Joseph Moore; Lin Su; Seong-Hun Kim; John Wong; Amol Narang; Joseph M Herman; Todd McNutt; Dengwang Li; Kai Ding Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Roya Norouzi Kandalan; Dan Nguyen; Nima Hassan Rezaeian; Ana M Barragán-Montero; Sebastiaan Breedveld; Kamesh Namuduri; Steve Jiang; Mu-Han Lin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Marta K Giżyńska; Linda Rossi; Wilhelm den Toom; Maaike T W Milder; Kim C de Vries; Joost Nuyttens; Ben J M Heijmen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 2.102