Dataset Information

Automated treatment planning of prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy with focal boosting on a fast-rotating O-ring linac: Plan quality comparison with C-arm linacs.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The integration of auto-segmentation and automated treatment planning methods on a fast-rotating O-ring linac may improve the time efficiency of online adaptive radiotherapy workflows. This study investigates whether automated treatment planning of prostate SBRT with focal boosting on the O-ring linac could generate plans that are of similar quality as those obtained through manual planning on clinical C-arm linacs.

Methods

For 20 men with prostate cancer, reference treatment plans were generated on a TrueBeam STx C-arm linac with HD120 MLC and a TrueBeam C-arm linac with Millennium 120 MLC using 6 MV flattened dual arc VMAT. Manual planning on the Halcyon fast-rotating O-ring linac was performed using 6 MV FFF dual arc VMAT (HA2-DL10) and triple arc VMAT (HA3-DL10) to investigate the performance of the dual-layer MLC system. Automated planning was performed for triple arc VMAT on the Halcyon linac (ET3-DL10) using the automated planning algorithms of Ethos Treatment Planning. The prescribed dose was 35 Gy to the prostate and 30 Gy to the seminal vesicles in five fractions. The iso-toxic focal boost to the intraprostatic tumor nodule(s) was aimed to receive up to 50 Gy. Plan deliverability was verified using portal image dosimetry measurements.

Results

Compared to the C-arm linacs, ET3-DL10 shows increased seminal vesicles PTV coverage (D_99% ) and reduced high-dose spillage to the bladder (V_37Gy ) and urethra (D_0.035cc ) but this came at the cost of increased high-dose spillage to the rectum (V_38Gy ) and a higher intermediate dose spillage (D2cm). No statistically significant differences were found when benchmarking HA2-DL10 and HA3-DL10 with the C-arm linacs. All plans passed the patient-specific QA tolerance limit.

Conclusions

Automated planning of prostate SBRT with focal boosting on the fast-rotating O-ring linac is feasible and achieves similar plan quality as those obtained on clinical C-arm linacs using manual planning.

SUBMITTER: De Roover R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425873 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeAdaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PC) by the 1.5 T MR-linac currently requires online planning by an expert user. A fully automated and user-independent solution to adaptive planning (mCycle) of PC-SBRT was compared with user's plans for the 1.5 T MR-linac.Methods and materialsFifty adapted plans on daily magnetic resonance imaging scans for 10 patients with PC treated by 35 Gy (prescription dose [Dp]) in 5 fractions were reoptimized offline from scratch, both by an expert planner (manual) and by mCycle. Manual plans consisted of multicriterial optimization (MCO) of the fluence map plus manual tweaking in segmentation, whereas in mCycle plans, the objectives were sequentially optimized by MCO according to an a-priori assigned priority list. The main criteria for planning approval were a dose ≥95% of the Dp to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), V33.2 (PTV) ≥ 95%, a dose less than the Dp to the hottest cubic centimeter (V35 ≤ 1 cm3) of rectum, bladder, penile bulb, and urethral planning risk volume (ie, urethra plus 3 mm isotropically), and V32 ≤ 5%, V28 ≤ 10%, and V18 ≤ 35% to the rectum. Such dose-volume metrics, plus some efficiency and deliverability metrics, were used for the comparison of mCycle versus manual plans.ResultsmCycle plans improved target dose coverage, with V33.2 (PTV) passing on average (±1 SD) from 95.7% (±1.0%) for manual plans to 97.5% (±1.3%) for mCycle plans (P < .001), and rectal dose sparing, with significantly reduced V32, V28, and V18 (P ≤ .004). Although at an equivalent number of segments, mCycle plans consumed moderately more monitor units (+17%) and delivery time (+9%) (P < .001), whereas they were generally faster (-19%) in terms of optimization times (P < .019). No significant differences were found for the passing rates of locally normalized γ (3 mm, 3%) (P = .059) and γ (2 mm, 2%) (P = .432) deliverability metrics.ConclusionsIn the offline setting, mCycle proved to be a trustable solution for automated planning of PC-SBRT on the 1.5 T MR-linac. mCycle integration in the online workflow will free the user from the challenging online-optimization task.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was found effective in treating laryngeal cancer with only five treatment fractions by a recent clinical trial (NCT01984502, ClinicalTrials.gov). Nevertheless, this trial used the Cyberknife system, which is not widely accessible enough to benefit all patients affected by laryngeal cancer. Our study investigates the feasibility of larynx SBRT treatment planning on a conventional gantry-based LINAC and compares its plan quality with that from the Cyberknife. MATERIALS & METHODS:Ten larynx SBRT cases were originally treated by Cyberknife using fixed cones in our institution, with plans created and optimized using the Monte-Carlo algorithm in the MultiPlan treatment planning system. These cases were retrospectively planned in the Eclipse planning system for a LINAC with the same prescription dose. We used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for larynx SBRT planning in Eclipse and incorporated non-coplanar arcs to approach the Cyberknife's large solid angle delivery space. We used both anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm for dose calculation and compared their accuracy by measurements on an in-house larynx phantom. We compared the LINAC VMAT plans (VMAT-AAA and VMAT-AXB) with the original Cyberknife plans using dosimetric endpoints such as the conformity index, gradient indices (R50, R20), OAR maximum/mean doses, and the monitor units. RESULTS:Phantom measurement showed that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms provided adequate dose calculation accuracy (94.7% gamma pass rate on 2%/2 mm criteria for AAA vs. 97.3% for AXB), though AXB provided better accuracy in the air cavity. The LINAC-based VMAT plans achieved similar dosimetric endpoints as the Cyberknife planning, and all plans met the larynx SBRT dosimetric constraints. Cyberknife plans achieved an average conformity index of 1.13, compared to 1.20 of VMAT-AXB and 1.19 of VMAT-AAA. The VMAT plans spared the thyroid gland better with average Dmean of 2.4 Gy (VMAT-AXB) and 2.7 Gy (VMAT-AAA), as compared to 4.3 Gy for Cyberknife plans. The VMAT-AAA plans had a slightly lower contralateral arytenoid Dmax (average: 15.2 Gy) than Cyberknife plans (average: 17.9 Gy) with statistical significance, while the contralateral arytenoid Dmax was similar between VMAT-AXB and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant difference. Cyberknife plans offered slightly better R50 (average: 5.0) than VMAT-AXB (5.9) and VMAT-AAA (5.7) plans. The VMAT plans substantially reduced the plan MUs to less than 1/3 of the Cyberknife plans, and the differences were statistically significant. The other metrics were similar between VMAT and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS:Gantry-based LINACs can achieve similar plan quality to Cyberknife systems. Treatment outcome with both methods remains to be investigated.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the dosimetric profiles of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the fast-rotating O-ring linac (the Halcyon system) based on a dual-layer stacked multi-leaf collimator and helical tomotherapy (HT) for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPCa).MethodsFor 30 NPCa patients, three sets of RT plans were generated, under the same policy of contouring and dose constraints: HT plan; Halcyon VMAT plan with two arcs (HL2arc); and Halcyon VMAT plan with four arcs (HL4arc), respectively. The intended dose schedule was to deliver 67.2 Gy to the planning gross target volume (P-GTV) and 56.0 Gy to the planning clinical target volume (P-CTV) in 28 fractions using the simultaneously integrated boost concept. Target volumes and organ at risks dose metrics were evaluated for all plans. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for esophagus, parotid glands, spinal cord, and brain stem were compared.ResultsThe HT plan achieved the best dose homogeneity index for both P_GTV and P_CTV, followed by the HL4arc and L2arc plans. No significant difference in the dose conformity index (CI) for P_GTV was observed between the HT plan (0.80) and either the HL2arc plan (0.79) or the HL4arc plan (0.83). The HL4arc plan showed the best CI for P_CTV (0.88), followed by the HL2arc plan (0.83) and the HT plan (0.80). The HL4arc plan (median, interquartile rage (Q1, Q3): 25.36 (22.22, 26.89) Gy) showed the lowest Dmean in the parotid glands, followed by the HT (25.88 (23.87, 27.87) Gy) and HL2arc plans (28.00 (23.24, 33.99) Gy). In the oral cavity (OC) dose comparison, the HT (22.03 (19.79, 24.85) Gy) plan showed the lowest Dmean compared to the HL2arc (23.96 (20.84, 28.02) Gy) and HL4arc (24.14 (20.17, 27.53) Gy) plans. Intermediate and low dose regions (40-65% of the prescribed dose) were well fit to the target volume in HL4arc, compared to the HT and HL2arc plans. All plans met the dose constraints for the other OARs with sufficient dose margins. The between-group differences in the median NTCP values for the parotid glands and OC were < 3.47% and < 1.7% points, respectively.ConclusionsThe dosimetric profiles of Halcyon VMAT plans were comparable to that of HT, and HL4arc showed better dosimetric profiles than HL2arc for NPCa.