Alba Magallon-Baro1, Maaike T W Milder2, Patrick V Granton2, Joost J Nuyttens2, Mischa S Hoogeman2. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.magallonbaro@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the trade-offs of three online strategies to adapt treatment plans of patients with locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC) treated using the CyberKnife with tumor tracking. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 35 planning computed tomography scans and 98 daily in-room computed tomography scans were collected from 35 patients with LAPC. Planned dose distributions, optimized with VOLO, were evaluated on manually contoured daily anatomies to collect daily doses. Three strategies were tested to adapt treatment plans: (1) unrestricted full replanning using a patient-specific plan template, (2) time-restricted replanning on organs at risk (OARs) within 3 cm from the planning target volume (PTV) structure, and (3) dose realignment optimization to stay within OAR constraints. Dose distributions resulting from each plan adaptation strategy were dosimetrically compared by means of gross tumor volume (GTV), PTV coverage, and OAR tolerances. RESULTS: Planned doses did not result in dose-constraint violations for 28 of 98 daily anatomies. None of the suggested plan adaptation strategies improved planned doses significantly for this subset. For 70 of the 98 reported violations, the median (interquartile range) PTV coverage of the planned dose was 84% (76% to 86%). After plan adaptation, unrestricted replanning achieved clinically acceptable plans in 93% of these fractions, time-restricted replanning in 90%, and dose realignment in 74%, at median computational times of 8.5, 3, and 0.5 minutes. Over all 98 fractions, PTV coverage was reduced: -1% (-3% to 1%), -2% (-5% to 0%), and -2% (-8% to 0%) after each strategy, respectively. In 3 of 70 fractions, none of the suggested strategies achieved clinically acceptable OAR dose volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Unrestricted replanning was the most time-consuming method but reached the highest number of successfully adapted plans. Time-restricted replanning and dose realignment resulted in a high number of plans within dose constraints. Depending on the resources available, an adaptive strategy can be selected for each patient to address the specific anatomic challenges on the treatment day. The increase in the complexity of the strategy corresponds with an increasing number of successfully adapted plans.
PURPOSE: To study the trade-offs of three online strategies to adapt treatment plans of patients with locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC) treated using the CyberKnife with tumor tracking. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 35 planning computed tomography scans and 98 daily in-room computed tomography scans were collected from 35 patients with LAPC. Planned dose distributions, optimized with VOLO, were evaluated on manually contoured daily anatomies to collect daily doses. Three strategies were tested to adapt treatment plans: (1) unrestricted full replanning using a patient-specific plan template, (2) time-restricted replanning on organs at risk (OARs) within 3 cm from the planning target volume (PTV) structure, and (3) dose realignment optimization to stay within OAR constraints. Dose distributions resulting from each plan adaptation strategy were dosimetrically compared by means of gross tumor volume (GTV), PTV coverage, and OAR tolerances. RESULTS: Planned doses did not result in dose-constraint violations for 28 of 98 daily anatomies. None of the suggested plan adaptation strategies improved planned doses significantly for this subset. For 70 of the 98 reported violations, the median (interquartile range) PTV coverage of the planned dose was 84% (76% to 86%). After plan adaptation, unrestricted replanning achieved clinically acceptable plans in 93% of these fractions, time-restricted replanning in 90%, and dose realignment in 74%, at median computational times of 8.5, 3, and 0.5 minutes. Over all 98 fractions, PTV coverage was reduced: -1% (-3% to 1%), -2% (-5% to 0%), and -2% (-8% to 0%) after each strategy, respectively. In 3 of 70 fractions, none of the suggested strategies achieved clinically acceptable OAR dose volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Unrestricted replanning was the most time-consuming method but reached the highest number of successfully adapted plans. Time-restricted replanning and dose realignment resulted in a high number of plans within dose constraints. Depending on the resources available, an adaptive strategy can be selected for each patient to address the specific anatomic challenges on the treatment day. The increase in the complexity of the strategy corresponds with an increasing number of successfully adapted plans.
Authors: William A Hall; Eric Paulson; X Allen Li; Beth Erickson; Christopher Schultz; Alison Tree; Musaddiq Awan; Daniel A Low; Brigid A McDonald; Travis Salzillo; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Amar U Kishan; Clifton D Fuller Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Joshua S Niedzielski; Yufei Liu; Sylvia S W Ng; Rachael M Martin; Luis A Perles; Sam Beddar; Neal Rebueno; Eugene J Koay; Cullen Taniguchi; Emma B Holliday; Prajnan Das; Grace L Smith; Bruce D Minsky; Ethan B Ludmir; Joseph M Herman; Albert Koong; Gabriel O Sawakuchi Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael D Chuong; Roberto Herrera; Adeel Kaiser; Muni Rubens; Tino Romaguera; Diane Alvarez; Rupesh Kotecha; Matthew D Hall; James McCulloch; Antonio Ucar; Fernando DeZarraga; Santiago Aparo; Sarah Joseph; Horacio Asbun; Ramon Jimenez; Govindarajan Narayanan; Alonso N Gutierrez; Kathryn E Mittauer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Alba Magallon-Baro; Maaike T W Milder; Patrick V Granton; Wilhelm den Toom; Joost J Nuyttens; Mischa S Hoogeman Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Minsol Kim; Joshua P Schiff; Alex Price; Eric Laugeman; Pamela P Samson; Hyun Kim; Shahed N Badiyan; Lauren E Henke Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Maaike T W Milder; Alba Magallon-Baro; Wilhelm den Toom; Erik de Klerck; Lorne Luthart; Joost J Nuyttens; Mischa S Hoogeman Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-07-28