BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) using a daily plan selection adaptive strategy can be applied to account for interfraction organ motion while limiting organ at risk dose. The aim of this study was to quantify the dosimetric consequences of daily plan selection compared with non-adaptive RT in cervical cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten consecutive patients who received pelvic irradiation, planning CTs (full and empty bladder), weekly post-fraction CTs and pre-fraction CBCTs were included. Non-adaptive plans were generated based on the PTV defined using the full bladder planning CT. For the adaptive strategy, multiple PTVs were created based on both planning CTs by ITVs of the primary CTVs (i.e., GTV, cervix, corpus-uterus and upper part of the vagina) and corresponding library plans were generated. Daily CBCTs were rigidly aligned to the full bladder planning CT for plan selection. For daily plan recalculation, selected CTs based on initial similarity were deformably registered to CBCTs. Differences in daily target coverage (D98% > 95%) and in V0.5Gy, V1.5Gy, V2Gy, D50% and D2% for rectum, bladder and bowel were assessed. RESULTS: Non-adaptive RT showed inadequate primary CTV coverage in 17% of the daily fractions. Plan selection compensated for anatomical changes and improved primary CTV coverage significantly (p < 0.01) to 98%. Compared with non-adaptive RT, plan selection decreased the fraction dose to rectum and bowel indicated by significant (p < 0.01) improvements for daily V0.5Gy, V1.5Gy, V2Gy, D50% and D2%. However, daily plan selection significantly increased the bladder V1.5Gy, V2Gy, D50% and D2%. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical cancer RT, a non-adaptive strategy led to inadequate target coverage for individual patients. Daily plan selection corrected for day-to-day anatomical variations and resulted in adequate target coverage in all fractions. The dose to bowel and rectum was decreased significantly when applying adaptive RT.
BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) using a daily plan selection adaptive strategy can be applied to account for interfraction organ motion while limiting organ at risk dose. The aim of this study was to quantify the dosimetric consequences of daily plan selection compared with non-adaptive RT in cervical cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten consecutive patients who received pelvic irradiation, planning CTs (full and empty bladder), weekly post-fraction CTs and pre-fraction CBCTs were included. Non-adaptive plans were generated based on the PTV defined using the full bladder planning CT. For the adaptive strategy, multiple PTVs were created based on both planning CTs by ITVs of the primary CTVs (i.e., GTV, cervix, corpus-uterus and upper part of the vagina) and corresponding library plans were generated. Daily CBCTs were rigidly aligned to the full bladder planning CT for plan selection. For daily plan recalculation, selected CTs based on initial similarity were deformably registered to CBCTs. Differences in daily target coverage (D98% > 95%) and in V0.5Gy, V1.5Gy, V2Gy, D50% and D2% for rectum, bladder and bowel were assessed. RESULTS: Non-adaptive RT showed inadequate primary CTV coverage in 17% of the daily fractions. Plan selection compensated for anatomical changes and improved primary CTV coverage significantly (p < 0.01) to 98%. Compared with non-adaptive RT, plan selection decreased the fraction dose to rectum and bowel indicated by significant (p < 0.01) improvements for daily V0.5Gy, V1.5Gy, V2Gy, D50% and D2%. However, daily plan selection significantly increased the bladder V1.5Gy, V2Gy, D50% and D2%. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical cancer RT, a non-adaptive strategy led to inadequate target coverage for individual patients. Daily plan selection corrected for day-to-day anatomical variations and resulted in adequate target coverage in all fractions. The dose to bowel and rectum was decreased significantly when applying adaptive RT.
Authors: Nina Boje Kibsgaard Jensen; Marianne Sanggaard Assenholt; Lars Ulrik Fokdal; Anne Vestergaard; Annette Schouboe; Eva Bruun Kjaersgaard; Annette Boejen; Lars Nyvang; Jacob Christian Lindegaard; Kari Tanderup Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-20
Authors: Thomas Berger; Lars U Fokdal; Marianne S Assenholt; Nina B K Jensen; Jørgen B B Petersen; Lars Nyvang; Stine Korreman; Jacob C Lindegaard; Kari Tanderup Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-06-26
Authors: Amanda Webster; Helen A McNair; Vibeke N Hansen; Rebecca Lewis; Emma Patel; Elizabeth Miles; Emma Hall; Shaista Hafeez; Robert Huddart Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-09