R de Jong1, J Visser2, K F Crama2, N van Wieringen2, J Wiersma2, E D Geijsen2, A Bel2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.a.j.dejong@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare target coverage and dose to the organs at risk in two approaches to rectal cancer: a clinically implemented adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy using plan selection, and a non-adaptive (non-ART) strategy. METHODS: The inclusion of the first 20 patients receiving adaptive radiotherapy produced 10 patients with a long treatment schedule (25x2Gy) and 10 patients with a short schedule (5X5Gy). We prepared a library of three plans with different anterior PTV margins to the upper mesorectum, and selected the most appropriate plan on daily Conebeam CT scans (CBCT). We also created a non-adaptive treatment plan with a 20 mm margin. Bowel bag, bladder and target volume were delineated on CBCT. Daily DHVs were calculated based on the dose distribution of the selected and non-adaptive plans. Coverage of the target volume was compared per fraction between the ART and non-ART plans, as was the dose to the bladder and small bowel, assessing the following dose levels: V15Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy, V15Gy and V95% for long treatment schedules, and V15Gy and V95% for short ones. RESULTS: Target volume coverage was maintained from 98.3% (non-ART) to 99.0% (ART)(p = 0.878). In the small bowel, ART appeared to have produced significant reductions in the long treatment schedule at V15Gy, V40Gy, V45Gy and V95% (p < 0.05), but with small absolute differences. The DVH parameters tested for the short treatment schedule did not differ significantly. In the bladder, all DVH parameters in both schedules showed significant reductions (p < 0.05), also with small absolute differences. CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive treatment maintained target coverage and reduced dose to the organs at risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and was retrospectively approved by the Medical Ethics review Committee of the Academic Medical Center, W19_194 # 19.233.
BACKGROUND: To compare target coverage and dose to the organs at risk in two approaches to rectal cancer: a clinically implemented adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy using plan selection, and a non-adaptive (non-ART) strategy. METHODS: The inclusion of the first 20 patients receiving adaptive radiotherapy produced 10 patients with a long treatment schedule (25x2Gy) and 10 patients with a short schedule (5X5Gy). We prepared a library of three plans with different anterior PTV margins to the upper mesorectum, and selected the most appropriate plan on daily Conebeam CT scans (CBCT). We also created a non-adaptive treatment plan with a 20 mm margin. Bowel bag, bladder and target volume were delineated on CBCT. Daily DHVs were calculated based on the dose distribution of the selected and non-adaptive plans. Coverage of the target volume was compared per fraction between the ART and non-ART plans, as was the dose to the bladder and small bowel, assessing the following dose levels: V15Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy, V15Gy and V95% for long treatment schedules, and V15Gy and V95% for short ones. RESULTS: Target volume coverage was maintained from 98.3% (non-ART) to 99.0% (ART)(p = 0.878). In the small bowel, ART appeared to have produced significant reductions in the long treatment schedule at V15Gy, V40Gy, V45Gy and V95% (p < 0.05), but with small absolute differences. The DVH parameters tested for the short treatment schedule did not differ significantly. In the bladder, all DVH parameters in both schedules showed significant reductions (p < 0.05), also with small absolute differences. CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive treatment maintained target coverage and reduced dose to the organs at risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and was retrospectively approved by the Medical Ethics review Committee of the Academic Medical Center, W19_194 # 19.233.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adaptive radiotherapy; Adaptive treatment; Library of plans; Normal tissue sparing; Plan of the day; Plan selection; Rectal cancer
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