Dataset Information

Development and clinical validation of Knowledge-based planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy of cervical cancer including pelvic and para aortic fields.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Knowledge-based planning (KBP) is based on a model to estimate dose-volume histograms, configured using a library of historical treatment plans to efficiently create high quality plans. The aim was to report configuration and validation of KBP for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy of cervical cancer.

Materials and methods

A KBP model was configured from the institutional database (n = 125), including lymph node positive (n = 60) and negative (n = 65) patients. KBP Predicted plans were compared with Clinical Plans (CP) and Re-plans (Predicted plan as a base-plan) to validate the model. Model quality was quantified using coefficient of determination R2, mean square error (MSE), standard two-tailed paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

Estimation capability of the model was good for the bowel bag (MSE = 0.001, R2 = 0.84), modest for the bladder (MSE = 0.008) and poor for the rectum (MSE = 0.02 R2 = 0.78). KBP resulted in comparable target coverage, superior organ sparing as compared to CP. Re-plans outperformed CP for the bladder, V30 (66 ± 11% vs 74 ± 11%, p < .001), V40 (48 ± 14% vs 52 ± 14%, p < .001), however sparing was modest for the bowel bag V30 (413 ± 191cm³ vs 445 ± 208cm³, p = .037) V40 (199 ± 105cm³ vs 218 ± 127cm³, p = .031). All plans were comparable for rectum, while KBP resulted in significant sparing for spinal cord, kidneys and femoral heads.

Conclusion

KBP yielded comparable and for some organs superior performance compared to CP resulting in conformal and homogeneous target coverage. Improved organ sparing was observed when individual patient geometry was considered.

SUBMITTER: Swamidas J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254199 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of oral contrast agents (OCAs) on dosimetry have not been studied in detail. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the influence of OCAs on dose calculation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for rectal cancer.MethodsFrom 2008 to 2016, computed tomography (CT) images were obtained from 33 rectal cancer patients administered OCA with or without intravenous contrast agent (ICA) and 14 patients who received no contrast agent. CT numbers of organs at risk were recorded and converted to electronic densities. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans were designed before and after the original densities were replaced with non-enhanced densities. Doses to the planned target volume (PTV) and organs at risk were compared between the plans.ResultsOCA significantly increased the mean and maximum densities of the bowels, while the effects of ICA on these parameters depended on the blood supply of the organs. With OCA, the actual doses for PTV were significantly higher than planned and doses to the bowel increased significantly although moderately. However, the increase in the volume receiving a high-range doses was substantial (the absolute change of intestine volume receiving ≥52 Gy: 1.46 [0.05-3.99, cubic centimeter range: -6.74 to 128.12], the absolute change of colon volume receiving ≥50 Gy: 0.34 [0.01-1.53 cc, range: -0.08 to 3.80 cc]. Dose changes due to ICA were insignificant. Pearson correlation showed that dose changes were significantly correlated with a high intestinal volume within or near the PTV (ρ > 0.5, P < 0.05) and with the density of enhanced intestine (ρ > 0.3, P < 0.05).ConclusionsContrast agents applied in simulation cause underestimation of doses in actual treatment. The overdose due to ICA was slight, while that due to OCA was moderate. The bowel volume receiving ≥50Gy was dramatically increased when OCA within the bowel was absent. Physicians should be aware of these issues if the original plan is barely within clinical tolerance or if a considerable volume of enhanced intestine is within or near the PTV.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In patients with prostate cancer (PCa) with histopathologically proven pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis (pN1) after extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND), multimodality treatment consisting of treatment of the primary tumor and whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) offers promising results, leading to better cause-specific survival rates compared with ADT alone. However, in case more than one pelvic LN is invaded by the tumor, approximately 40% of the patients relapse biochemically and clinically. Clinical relapse is present in the para-aortic LNs (M1a disease) in up to 77% of the relapsing cases. OBJECTIVE:We hypothesize that, based on the evidence that positive LNs represent the door to hematogenous dissemination, elective para-aortic irradiation will reduce the development of both retroperitoneal nodal (M1a) and distant metastasis (M1b or M1c disease), postpone the need for palliative ADT, and prolong the time to castration-refractory disease. METHODS:To test this hypothesis, we will conduct a prospective, nonrandomized phase II trial to study the efficacy of additional elective para-aortic radiotherapy (PART) in pN1 patients compared with those who were historically treated with adjuvant WPRT alone. We aim to include 137 patients with PCa and presence of pN1 disease after ePLND. With this number of patients, an improvement of 15% in the 5-year clinical relapse-free survival can be detected with a power of 80%. RESULTS:Recruitment of patients for this trial started in 2017 and will be completed approximately by March 2020. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first phase II trial to investigate the benefits of an elective PART in patients with PCa. The results of this trial will potentially serve as a sound base for a later randomized phase III trial. All participants are given a PART information sheet and required to give written informed consent. Results are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03079323; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03079323 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73ELimv1d). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/11256.

Project description:PurposeTo create and to validate knowledge-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) models for breast cancer treatments without lymph node irradiation.Materials and methodsOne hundred VMAT-based breast plans (manual plans [MP]) were selected to create two knowledge-based VMAT models (breast left and breast right) using RapidPlan™. The plans were generated on Eclipse v15.5 (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with 6 MV of a Novalis Tx equipped with a high-resolution multileaf collimator. The models were verified based on goodness-of-fit statistics using the coefficients of determination (R 2) and Chi-square (χ2), and the goodness-of-estimation statistics through the mean square error (MSE). Geometrical and dosimetrical constraints were identified and removed from the RP models using statistical evaluation metrics and plots. For validation, 20 plans that integrate the models and 20 plans that do not were reoptimized with RP (closed and opened validation). Dosimetrical parameters of interest were used to compare MP versus RP plans for the Heart, Homolateral_Lung, Contralateral_Lung, and Contralateral_Breast. Optimization planning time and user independency were also analyzed.ResultsThe most unfavorable results of R2 in both models for the organs at risk were as follows: for Contralateral_Lung 0.51 in RP right breast (RP_RB) and for Heart 0.60 in RP left breast (RP_LB). The most unfavorable results of χ2 test were: for Contralateral_Breast 1.02 in RP_RB and for Heart 1.03 in RP_LB. These goodness-of-fit results show that no overfitting occurred in either of the models. There were no unfavorable results of mean square error (MSE, all < 0.05) in any of the two models. These goodness-of-estimation results show that the models have good estimation power. For closed validation, significant differences were found in RP_RB for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.001), and in the RP_LB differences were found for the heart (all P ≤ 0.04) and for Homolateral_Lung (all P ≤ 0.022). For open validation, no statistically significant differences were obtained in either of the models. RP models had little impact on reducing optimization planning times for expert planners; nevertheless, the result showed a 30% reduction time for beginner planners. The use of RP models generates high-quality plans, without differences from the planner experience.ConclusionTwo RP models for breast cancer treatment using VMAT were successfully implemented. The use of RP models for breast cancer reduces the optimization planning time and improves the efficiency of the treatment planning process while ensuring high-quality plans.

Project description:The purpose of this work is to evaluate the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) multicriteria optimization (MCO) algorithm clinically available in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) and its ability to reduce treatment planning time while providing high dosimetric plan quality. Nine patients with localized prostate cancer who were previously treated with 78 Gy in 39 fractions using VMAT plans and rayArc system based on the direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO) algorithm were selected and replanned using the VMAT-MCO system. First, the dosimetric quality of the plans was evaluated using multiple conformity metrics that account for target coverage and sparing of healthy tissue, used in our departmental clinical protocols. The conformity and homogeneity index, number of monitor units, and treatment planning time for both modalities were assessed. Next, the effects of the technical plan parameters, such as constraint leaf motion CLM (cm/°) and maximum arc delivery time T (s), on the accuracy of delivered dose were evaluated using quality assurance passing rates (QAs) measured using the Delta4 phantom from ScandiDos. For the dosimetric plan's quality analysis, the results show that the VMAT-MCO system provides plans comparable to the rayArc system with no statistical difference for V95% (p < 0.01), D1% (p < 0.01), CI (p < 0.01), and HI (p < 0.01) of the PTV, bladder (p < 0.01), and rectum (p < 0.01) constraints, except for the femoral heads and healthy tissues, for which a dose reduction was observed using MCO compared with rayArc (p < 0.01). The technical parameter study showed that a combination of CLM equal to 0.5 cm/degree and a maximum delivery time of 72 s allowed the accurate delivery of the VMAT-MCO plan on the Elekta Versa HD linear accelerator. Planning evaluation and dosimetric measurements showed that VMAT-MCO can be used clinically with the advantage of enhanced planning process efficiency by reducing the treatment planning time without impairing dosimetric quality.

Project description:To introduce a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy/intensity modulated radiation therapy (VMAT/IMRT) optimization strategy called FusionArc that combines the delivery efficiency of single-arc VMAT with the potentially desirable intensity modulation possible with IMRT.A beamlet-based inverse planning system was enhanced to combine the advantages of VMAT and IMRT into one comprehensive technique. In the hybrid strategy, baseline single-arc VMAT plans are optimized and then the current cost function gradients with respect to the beamlets are used to define a metric for predicting which beam angles would benefit from further intensity modulation. Beams with the highest metric values (called the gradient factor) are converted from VMAT apertures to IMRT fluence, and the optimization proceeds with the mixed variable set until convergence or until additional beams are selected for conversion. One phantom and two clinical cases were used to validate the gradient factor and characterize the FusionArc strategy. Comparisons were made between standard IMRT, single-arc VMAT, and FusionArc plans with one to five IMRT∕hybrid beams.The gradient factor was found to be highly predictive of the VMAT angles that would benefit plan quality the most from beam modulation. Over the three cases studied, a FusionArc plan with three converted beams achieved superior dosimetric quality with reductions in final cost ranging from 26.4% to 48.1% compared to single-arc VMAT. Additionally, the three beam FusionArc plans required 22.4%-43.7% fewer MU∕Gy than a seven beam IMRT plan. While the FusionArc plans with five converted beams offer larger reductions in final cost--32.9%-55.2% compared to single-arc VMAT--the decrease in MU∕Gy compared to IMRT was noticeably smaller at 12.2%-18.5%, when compared to IMRT.A hybrid VMAT∕IMRT strategy was implemented to find a high quality compromise between gantry-angle and intensity-based degrees of freedom. This optimization method will allow patients to be simultaneously planned for dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency without switching between delivery techniques. Example phantom and clinical cases suggest that the conversion of only three VMAT segments to modulated beams may result in a good combination of quality and efficiency.

Project description:This dosimetric study investigated the impact of multileaf collimators (MLC) leaf width in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancers (HNC), either with a "standard" simultaneously integrated boost technique (S-SIB) or with a "dose painting" SIB technique (DP-SIB). HNC patients were planned either with an S-SIB comprising three dose levels, from 56 to 70 Gy (16 patients), or with a DP-SIB comprising five dose levels, from 56 to 84 Gy (8 patients), in 35 fractions. Two VMAT plans were calculated for each SIB technique using two Elekta MLCs: MLCi2 with 10 mm leaf width and Beam Modulator (BM) with 4 mm leaf width. Dose distributions were evaluated by comparing doses on PTVs, main OARs, and healthy tissue, and by comparing conformation indexes. Treatment efficiencies were evaluated by comparing the number of monitor units and the number of needed arcs. Comparisons of the two MLCs depending on the two SIB techniques showed: i) Regarding PTVs: Dmean and D2% on lower doses PTV decreased respectively by 0.5 Gy (p = 0.01) and 0.9 Gy (p = 0.01) with BM than with MLCi2 for S-SIB; no significant difference was found for DP-SIB;ii) Regarding OARs: for spinal cord and brainstem, D2% decreased respectively by 1.2 Gy (p = 0.03) and 4.2 Gy (p = 0.04) with BM than with MLCi2 for S-SIB; for controlateral parotid, D50% decreased by 1.5 Gy (p = 0.01) with BM than with MLCi2 for S-SIB; iii) Regarding treatment efficiency: the number of monitor units was 44% (p = 0.00) and 51% (p = 0.01) higher with BM for S-SIB and DP-SIB, respectively. Two arcs were more frequently needed with BM to reach an acceptable dose distribution. This study demonstrated that Beam Modulator (4 mm leaf width) and MLCi2 (10 mm leaf width) MLCs from Elekta provided satisfactory dose distributions for treatment delivery with VMAT technique for complex HNC cases with standard and dose painting prescriptions. OAR sparing was better with BM, mainly for brainstem and spinal cord. However, delivery efficiency of VMAT plans was better with MLCi2.