Dataset Information

Comparison of Library of Plans with two daily adaptive strategies for whole bladder radiotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Whole bladder radiotherapy is challenging due to inter- and intrafraction size and shape changes. To account for these changes, currently a Library of Plans (LoP) technique is often applied, but daily adaptive radiotherapy is also increasingly becoming available. The aim of this study was to compare LoP with two magnetic resonance imaging guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) strategies by comparing target coverage and volume of healthy tissue inside the planning target volume (PTV) for whole bladder treatments.

Methods and materials

Data from 25 MRgRT lymph node oligometastases treatments (125 fractions) were used, with three MRI scans acquired at each fraction at 0, 15 and 30 min. Bladders were delineated and used to evaluate three strategies: 1) LoP with two plans for a 15 min fraction, 2) MRgRT_15min for a 15 min fraction and 3) MRgRT_30min for a 30 min fraction. The volumes of healthy tissue inside and bladder outside the PTV were analyzed on the simulated post-treatment images.

Results

MRgRT_30min had 120% and 121% more healthy tissue inside the PTV than LoP and MRgRT_15min. For LoP slightly more target outside the PTV was found than for MRgRT_30min and MRgRT_15min, with median 0% (range 0-23%) compared to 0% (0-20%) and 0% (0-10%), respectively.

Conclusions

Taking into account both target coverage and volume of healthy tissue inside the PTV, MRgRT_15min performed better than LoP and MRgRT_30min for whole bladder treatments. A 15 min daily adaptive radiotherapy workflow is needed to potentially benefit from replanning compared to LoP.

SUBMITTER: den Boer D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8609047 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeIn prostate cancer treatment with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), prostate motion and internal changes in tissue distribution can lead to a decrease in plan quality. In most currently used planning methods, the uncertainties due to prostate motion are compensated by irradiating a larger treatment volume. However, this could cause underdosage of the treatment volume and overdosage of the organs at risk (OARs). To reduce this problem, in this proof of principle study we developed and evaluated a novel adaptive planning method. The strategy proposed corrects the dose delivered by each beam according to the actual position of the target in order to produce a final dose distribution dosimetrically as similar as possible to the prescribed one.Material and methodsOur adaptive planning method was tested on a phantom case and on a clinical case. For the first, a pilot study was performed on an in-silico pelvic phantom. A "library" of intensity modulated RT (IMRT) plans corresponding to possible positions of the prostate during a treatment fraction was generated at planning stage. Then a 3D random walk model was used to simulate possible displacements of the prostate during the treatment fraction. At treatment stage, at the end of each beam, based on the current position of the target, the beam from the library of plans, which could reproduce the best approximation of the prescribed dose distribution, was selected and delivered. In the clinical case, the same approach was used on two prostate cancer patients: for the first a tissue deformation was simulated in-silico and for the second a cone beam CT (CBCT) taken during the treatment was used to simulate an intra-fraction change. Then, dosimetric comparisons with the standard treatment plan and, for the second patient, also with an isocenter shift correction, were performed.ResultsFor the phantom case, the plan generated using the adaptive planning method was able to meet all the dosimetric requirements and to correct for a misdosage of 13% of the dose prescription on the prostate. For the first clinical case, the standard planning method caused underdosage of the seminal vesicles, respectively by 5% and 4% of the prescribed dose, when the position changes for the target were correctly taken into account. The proposed adaptive planning method corrected any possible missed target coverage, reducing at the same time the dose on the OARs. For the second clinical case, both with the standard planning strategy and with the isocenter shift correction target coverage was significantly worsened (in particular uniformity) and some organs exceeded some toxicity objectives. While with our approach, the most uniform coverage for the target was produced and systematically the lowest toxicity values for the organs at risk were achieved.ConclusionsIn our proof of principle study, the adaptive planning method performed better than the standard planning and the isocenter shift methods for prostate EBRT. It improved the coverage of the treatment volumes and lowered the dose to the OARs. This planning method is particularly promising for hypofractionated IMRT treatments in which a higher precision and control on dose deposition are needed. Further studies will be performed to test more extensively the proposed adaptive planning method and to evaluate it at a full clinical level.