Dataset Information

Online adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancers on the MR linear Accelerator: Introducing a novel modified Adapt-to-Shape approach.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Elekta Unity MR-Linac (MRL) has enabled adaptive radiotherapy (ART) for patients with head and neck cancers (HNC). Adapt-To-Shape-Lite (ATS-Lite) is a novel Adapt-to-Shape strategy that provides ART without requiring daily clinician presence to perform online target and organ at risk (OAR) delineation. In this study we compared the performance of our clinically-delivered ATS-Lite strategy against three Adapt-To-Position (ATP) variants: Adapt Segments (ATP-AS), Optimise Weights (ATP-OW), and Optimise Shapes (ATP-OS).

Methods

Two patients with HNC received radical-dose radiotherapy on the MRL. For each fraction, an ATS-Lite plan was generated online and delivered and additional plans were generated offline for each ATP variant. To assess the clinical acceptability of a plan for every fraction, twenty clinical goals for targets and OARs were assessed for all four plans.

Results

53 fractions were analysed. ATS-Lite passed 99.9% of mandatory dose constraints. ATP-AS and ATP-OW each failed 7.6% of mandatory dose constraints. The Planning Target Volumes for 54 Gy (D95% and D98%) were the most frequently failing dose constraint targets for ATP. ATS-Lite median fraction times for Patient 1 and 2 were 40 mins 9 s (range 28 mins 16 s - 47 mins 20 s) and 32 mins 14 s (range 25 mins 33 s - 44 mins 27 s), respectively.

Conclusions

Our early data show that the novel ATS-Lite strategy produced plans that fulfilled 99.9% of clinical dose constraints in a time frame that is tolerable for patients and comparable to ATP workflows. Therefore, ATS-Lite, which bridges the gap between ATP and full ATS, will be further utilised and developed within our institute and it is a workflow that should be considered for treating patients with HNC on the MRL.

SUBMITTER: Gupta A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8608651 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeA hybrid magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MRL) can perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with high soft-tissue contrast to be used for online adaptive radiotherapy (oART). To obtain electron densities needed for the oART dose calculation, a computed tomography (CT) is often deformably registered to MRI. Our aim was to evaluate an MRI-only based synthetic CT (sCT) generation as an alternative to the deformed CT (dCT)-based oART in the abdominal region.MethodsThe study data consisted of 57 patients who were treated on a 0.35 T MRL system mainly for abdominal tumors. Simulation MRI-CT pairs of 43 patients were used for training and validation of a prototype convolutional neural network sCT-generation algorithm, based on HighRes3DNet, for the abdominal region. For remaining test patients, sCT images were produced from simulation MRIs and daily MRIs. The dCT-based plans were re-calculated on sCT with identical calculation parameters. The sCT and dCT were compared in terms of geometric agreement and calculated dose.ResultsThe mean and one standard deviation of the geometric agreement metrics over dCT-sCT-pairs were: mean error of 8 ± 10 HU, mean absolute error of 49 ± 10 HU, and Dice similarity coefficient of 55 ± 12%, 60 ± 5%, and 82 ± 15% for bone, fat, and lung tissues, respectively. The dose differences between the sCT and dCT-based dose for planning target volumes were 0.5 ± 0.9%, 0.6 ± 0.8%, and 0.5 ± 0.8% at D2% , D50% , and D98% in physical dose and 0.8 ± 1.4%, 0.8 ± 1.2%, and 0.6 ± 1.1% in biologically effective dose (BED). For organs-at-risk, the dose differences of all evaluated dose-volume histogram points were within [-4.5%, 7.8%] and [-1.1 Gy, 3.5 Gy] in both physical dose and BED.ConclusionsThe geometric agreement metrics were within typically reported values and most average relative dose differences were within 1%. Thus, an MRI-only sCT-based approach is a promising alternative to the current clinical practice of the abdominal oART on MRL.

Project description:IntroductionParaspinal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) involves risks of severe complications. We evaluated the safety of the paraspinal SBRT program in a large academic hospital by applying failure modes and effects analysis.MethodsThe analysis was conducted by a multidisciplinary committee (two therapists, one dosimetrist, four physicists, and two radiation oncologists). The paraspinal SBRT workflow was segmented into four phases (simulation, treatment planning, delivery, and machine quality assurance (QA)). Each phase was further divided into a sequence of sub-processes. Potential failure modes (PFM) were identified from each subprocess and scored in terms of the frequency of occurrence, severity and detectability, and a risk priority number (RPN). High-risk PFMs were identified based on RPN and were studied for root causes using fault tree analysis.ResultsOur paraspinal SBRT process was characterized by eight simulations, 11 treatment planning, nine delivery, and two machine QA sub-processes. There were 18, 29, 19, and eight PFMs identified from simulation, planning, treatment, and machine QA, respectively. The median RPN of the PFMs was 62.9 for simulation, 68.3 for planning, 52.9 for delivery, and 22.0 for machine QA. The three PFMs with the highest RPN were: previous radiotherapy outside the institution is not accurately evaluated (RPN: 293.3), incorrect registration between diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging and simulation computed tomography causing incorrect contours (273.0), and undetected patient movement before ExacTrac baseline (217.8). Remedies to the high RPN failures were implemented, including staff education, standardized magnetic resonance imaging acquisition parameters, and an image fusion process, and additional QA on beam steering.ConclusionsA paraspinal SBRT workflow in a large clinic was evaluated using a multidisciplinary and systematic risk analysis, which led to feasible solutions to key root causes. Treatment planning was a major source of PFMs that systematically affect the safety and quality of treatments. Accurate evaluation of external treatment records remains a challenge.