Dataset Information

On the Importance of Individualized, Non-Coplanar Beam Configurations in Mediastinal Lymphoma Radiotherapy, Optimized With Automated Planning.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Literature is non-conclusive regarding selection of beam configurations in radiotherapy for mediastinal lymphoma (ML) radiotherapy, and published studies are based on manual planning with its inherent limitations. In this study, coplanar and non-coplanar beam configurations were systematically compared, using a large number of automatically generated plans.

Material and methods

An autoplanning workflow, including beam configuration optimization, was configured for young female ML patients. For each of 25 patients, 24 plans with different beam configurations were generated with autoplanning: 11 coplanar CP_x plans and 11 non-coplanar NCP_x plans with x = 5 to 15 IMRT beams with computer-optimized, patient-specific configurations, and the coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar Butterfly VMAT (B-VMAT) beam angle class solutions (600 plans in total).

Results

Autoplans compared favorably with manually generated, clinically delivered plans, ensuring that beam configuration comparisons were performed with high quality plans. There was no beam configuration approach that was best for all patients and all plan parameters. Overall there was a clear tendency towards higher plan quality with non-coplanar configurations (NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT). NCP_x≥12 produced highly conformal plans with on average reduced high doses in lungs and patient and also a reduced heart Dmean, while B-VMAT resulted in reduced low-dose spread in lungs and left breast.

Conclusions

Non-coplanar beam configurations were favorable for young female mediastinal lymphoma patients, with patient-specific and plan-parameter-dependent dosimetric advantages of NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT. Individualization of beam configuration approach, considering also the faster delivery of B-VMAT vs. NCP_x≥12, can importantly improve the treatments.

SUBMITTER: Rossi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082440 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo propose and validate a fully automated multicriterial treatment planning solution for a CyberKnife® equipped with an InCiseTM 2 multileaf collimator.MethodsThe AUTO BAO plans are generated using fully automated prioritized multicriterial optimization (AUTO MCO) of pencil-beam fluence maps with integrated noncoplanar beam angle optimization (BAO), followed by MLC segment generation. Both the AUTO MCO and segmentation algorithms have been developed in-house. AUTO MCO generates for each patient a single, high-quality Pareto-optimal IMRT plan. The segmentation algorithm then accurately mimics the AUTO MCO 3D dose distribution, while considering all candidate beams simultaneously, rather than replicating the fluence maps. Pencil-beams, segment dose depositions, and final dose calculations are performed with a stand-alone version of the clinical dose calculation engine. For validation, AUTO BAO plans were generated for 33 prostate SBRT patients and compared to reference plans (REF) that were manually generated with the commercial treatment planning system (TPS), in absence of time pressure. REF plans were also compared to AUTO RB plans, for which fluence map optimization was performed for the beam angle configuration used in the REF plan, and the segmentation could use all these beams or only a subset, depending on the dosimetry.ResultsAUTO BAO plans were clinically acceptable and dosimetrically similar to REF plans, but had on average reduced numbers of beams ((beams in AUTO BAO)/(beams in REF) (relative improvement): 24.7/48.3 (-49%)), segments (59.5/98.9 (-40%)), and delivery times (17.1/22.3 min. (-23%)). Dosimetry of AUTO RB and REF were also similar, but AUTO RB used on average fewer beams (38.0/48.3 (-21%)) and had on average shorter delivery times (18.6/22.3 min. (-17%)). Delivered Monitor Units (MU) were similar for all three planning approaches.ConclusionsA new, vendor-independent optimization workflow for fully automated generation of deliverable high-quality CyberKnife® plans was proposed, including BAO. Compared to manual planning with the commercial TPS, fraction delivery times were reduced by 5.3 min. (-23%) due to large reductions in beam and segment numbers.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no consensus regarding the clinical target volume (CTV) margins in radiotherapy for glioma. In this study, we aimed to perform a complete macropathologic analysis examining microscopic tumor extension (ME) to more accurately define the CTV in glioma.MethodsThirty-eight supra-total resection specimens of glioma patients were examined on histologic sections. The ME distance, defined as the maximum linear distance from the tumor border to the invasive tumor cells, was measured at each section. We defined the CTV based on the relationships between ME distance and clinicopathologic features.ResultsBetween February 2016 and July 2020, a total of 814 slides were examined, corresponding to 162 slides for low-grade glioma (LGG) and 652 slides for high-grade glioma (HGG). The ME value was 0.69 ± 0.43 cm for LGG and 1.29 ± 0.54 cm for HGG (P < 0.001). After multivariate analysis, tumor grade, O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase promoter methylated status (MGMTm), isocitrate dehydrogenase wild-type status (IDHwt), and 1p/19q non-co-deleted status (non-codel) were positively correlated with ME distance (all P < 0.05). We defined the CTV of glioma based on tumor grade. To take into account approximately 95% of the ME, a margin of 1.00 cm, 1.50 cm, and 2.00 cm were chosen for grade II, grade III, and grade IV glioma, respectively. Paired analysis of molecularly defined patients confirmed that tumors that had all three molecular alterations (i.e., MGMTm/IDHwt/non-codel) were the most aggressive subgroups (all P < 0.05). For these patients, the margin could be up to 1.50 cm, 2.00 cm, and 2.50 cm for grade II, grade III, and grade IV glioma, respectively, to cover the subclinical lesions in 95% of cases.ConclusionsThe ME was different between the grades of gliomas. It may be reasonable to recommend 1.00 cm, 1.50 cm, and 2.00 cm CTV margins for grade II, grade III, and grade IV glioma, respectively. Considering the highly aggressive nature of MGMTm/IDHwt/non-codel tumors, for these patients, the margin could be further expanded by 0.5 cm. These recommendations would encompass microscopic disease extension in 95% of cases.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR2100049376 ).

Project description:PurposeKnowledge-based planning (KBP) offers the ability to predict dose-volume metrics based on information extracted from previous plans, reducing plan variability and improving plan quality. As clinical integration of KBP is increasing there is a growing need for quantitative evaluation of KBP models. A .NET-based application, RapidCompare, was created for automated plan creation and analysis of Varian RapidPlan models.MethodsRapidCompare was designed to read calculation parameters and a list of reference plans. The tool copies the reference plan field geometry and structure set, applies the RapidPlan model, optimizes the KBP plan, and generates data for quantitative evaluation of dose-volume metrics. A cohort of 85 patients, divided into training (50), testing (10), and validation (25) groups, was used to demonstrate the utility of RapidCompare. After training and tuning, the KBP model was paired with three different optimization templates to compare various planning strategies in the validation cohort. All templates used the same set of constraints for the planning target volume (PTV). For organs-at-risk, the optimization template provided constraints using the whole dose-volume histogram (DVH), fixed-dose/volume points, or generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD). The resulting plans from each optimization approach were compared using DVH metrics.ResultsRapidCompare allowed for the automated generation of 75 total plans for comparison with limited manual intervention. In comparing optimization techniques, the Dose/Volume and Lines optimization templates generated plans with similar DVH metrics, with a slight preference for the Lines technique with reductions in heart V30Gy and spinal cord max dose. The gEUD model produced high target heterogeneity.ConclusionAutomated evaluation allowed for the exploration of multiple optimization templates in a larger validation cohort than would have been feasible using a manual approach. A final KBP model using line optimization objectives produced the highest quality plans without human intervention.