Cargando…

A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system

PURPOSE: A planning strategy was developed and the utility of online‐adaptation with the Ethos CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry adaptive radiotherapy (ART) system was evaluated using retrospective data from Head‐and‐neck (H&N) patients that required clinical offline adaptation during treatment. METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nasser, Nour, Yang, George Q., Koo, Jihye, Bowers, Mark, Greco, Kevin, Feygelman, Vladimir, Moros, Eduardo G., Caudell, Jimmy J., Redler, Gage
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37621133
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14134
_version_ 1785152777309126656
author Nasser, Nour
Yang, George Q.
Koo, Jihye
Bowers, Mark
Greco, Kevin
Feygelman, Vladimir
Moros, Eduardo G.
Caudell, Jimmy J.
Redler, Gage
author_facet Nasser, Nour
Yang, George Q.
Koo, Jihye
Bowers, Mark
Greco, Kevin
Feygelman, Vladimir
Moros, Eduardo G.
Caudell, Jimmy J.
Redler, Gage
author_sort Nasser, Nour
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: A planning strategy was developed and the utility of online‐adaptation with the Ethos CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry adaptive radiotherapy (ART) system was evaluated using retrospective data from Head‐and‐neck (H&N) patients that required clinical offline adaptation during treatment. METHODS: Clinical data were used to re‐plan 20 H&N patients (10 sequential boost (SEQ) with separate base and boost plans plus 10 simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)). An optimal approach, robust to online adaptation, for Ethos‐initial plans using clinical goal prioritization was developed. Anatomically‐derived isodose‐shaping helper structures, air‐density override, goals for controlling hotspot location(s), and plan normalization were investigated. Online adaptation was simulated using clinical offline adaptive simulation‐CTs to represent an on‐treatment CBCT. Dosimetric comparisons were based on institutional guidelines for Clinical‐initial versus Ethos‐initial plans and Ethos‐scheduled versus Ethos‐adapted plans. Timing for five components of the online adaptive workflow was analyzed. RESULTS: The Ethos H&N planning approach generated Ethos‐initial SEQ plans with clinically comparable PTV coverage (average PTV(High) V(100%) = 98.3%, D(min,0.03cc) = 97.9% and D(0.03cc) = 105.5%) and OAR sparing. However, Ethos‐initial SIB plans were clinically inferior (average PTV(High) V(100%) = 96.4%, D(min,0.03cc) = 93.7%, D(0.03cc) = 110.6%). Fixed‐field IMRT was superior to VMAT for 93.3% of plans. Online adaptation succeeded in achieving conformal coverage to the new anatomy in both SEQ and SIB plans that was even superior to that achieved in the initial plans (which was due to the changes in anatomy that simplified the optimization). The average adaptive workflow duration for SIB, SEQ base and SEQ boost was 30:14, 22.56, and 14:03 (min: sec), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With an optimal planning approach, Ethos efficiently auto‐generated dosimetrically comparable and clinically acceptable initial SEQ plans for H&N patients. Initial SIB plans were inferior and clinically unacceptable, but adapted SIB plans became clinically acceptable. Online adapted plans optimized dose to new anatomy and maintained target coverage/homogeneity with improved OAR sparing in a time‐efficient manner.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10691641
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106916412023-12-02 A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system Nasser, Nour Yang, George Q. Koo, Jihye Bowers, Mark Greco, Kevin Feygelman, Vladimir Moros, Eduardo G. Caudell, Jimmy J. Redler, Gage J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: A planning strategy was developed and the utility of online‐adaptation with the Ethos CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry adaptive radiotherapy (ART) system was evaluated using retrospective data from Head‐and‐neck (H&N) patients that required clinical offline adaptation during treatment. METHODS: Clinical data were used to re‐plan 20 H&N patients (10 sequential boost (SEQ) with separate base and boost plans plus 10 simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)). An optimal approach, robust to online adaptation, for Ethos‐initial plans using clinical goal prioritization was developed. Anatomically‐derived isodose‐shaping helper structures, air‐density override, goals for controlling hotspot location(s), and plan normalization were investigated. Online adaptation was simulated using clinical offline adaptive simulation‐CTs to represent an on‐treatment CBCT. Dosimetric comparisons were based on institutional guidelines for Clinical‐initial versus Ethos‐initial plans and Ethos‐scheduled versus Ethos‐adapted plans. Timing for five components of the online adaptive workflow was analyzed. RESULTS: The Ethos H&N planning approach generated Ethos‐initial SEQ plans with clinically comparable PTV coverage (average PTV(High) V(100%) = 98.3%, D(min,0.03cc) = 97.9% and D(0.03cc) = 105.5%) and OAR sparing. However, Ethos‐initial SIB plans were clinically inferior (average PTV(High) V(100%) = 96.4%, D(min,0.03cc) = 93.7%, D(0.03cc) = 110.6%). Fixed‐field IMRT was superior to VMAT for 93.3% of plans. Online adaptation succeeded in achieving conformal coverage to the new anatomy in both SEQ and SIB plans that was even superior to that achieved in the initial plans (which was due to the changes in anatomy that simplified the optimization). The average adaptive workflow duration for SIB, SEQ base and SEQ boost was 30:14, 22.56, and 14:03 (min: sec), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With an optimal planning approach, Ethos efficiently auto‐generated dosimetrically comparable and clinically acceptable initial SEQ plans for H&N patients. Initial SIB plans were inferior and clinically unacceptable, but adapted SIB plans became clinically acceptable. Online adapted plans optimized dose to new anatomy and maintained target coverage/homogeneity with improved OAR sparing in a time‐efficient manner. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10691641/ /pubmed/37621133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14134 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Nasser, Nour
Yang, George Q.
Koo, Jihye
Bowers, Mark
Greco, Kevin
Feygelman, Vladimir
Moros, Eduardo G.
Caudell, Jimmy J.
Redler, Gage
A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system
title A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system
title_full A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system
title_fullStr A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system
title_full_unstemmed A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system
title_short A head and neck treatment planning strategy for a CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system
title_sort head and neck treatment planning strategy for a cbct‐guided ring‐gantry online adaptive radiotherapy system
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37621133
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14134
work_keys_str_mv AT nassernour aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT yanggeorgeq aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT koojihye aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT bowersmark aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT grecokevin aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT feygelmanvladimir aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT moroseduardog aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT caudelljimmyj aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT redlergage aheadandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT nassernour headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT yanggeorgeq headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT koojihye headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT bowersmark headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT grecokevin headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT feygelmanvladimir headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT moroseduardog headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT caudelljimmyj headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem
AT redlergage headandnecktreatmentplanningstrategyforacbctguidedringgantryonlineadaptiveradiotherapysystem