Cargando…

Treatment plan quality during online adaptive re-planning

BACKGROUND: Online adaptive radiotherapy is intended to prevent plan degradation caused by inter-fractional tumor volume and shape changes, but time limitations make online re-planning challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of online-adapted plans to their respective reference...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Timmeren, Janita E., Chamberlain, Madalyne, Krayenbuehl, Jérôme, Wilke, Lotte, Ehrbar, Stefanie, Bogowicz, Marta, Hartley, Callum, Zamburlini, Mariangela, Andratschke, Nicolaus, Garcia Schüler, Helena, Pavic, Matea, Balermpas, Panagiotis, Ryu, Chaehee, Guckenberger, Matthias, Tanadini-Lang, Stephanie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7441614/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32825848
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01641-0
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Online adaptive radiotherapy is intended to prevent plan degradation caused by inter-fractional tumor volume and shape changes, but time limitations make online re-planning challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of online-adapted plans to their respective reference treatment plans. METHODS: Fifty-two patients treated on a ViewRay MRIdian Linac were included in this retrospective study. In total 238 online-adapted plans were analyzed, which were optimized with either changing of the segment weights (n = 85) or full re-optimization (n = 153). Five different treatment sites were evaluated: prostate, abdomen, liver, lung and pelvis. Dosimetric parameters of gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), 2 cm ring around the PTV and organs at risk (OARs) were considered. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess differences between online-adapted and reference treatment plans, p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The average duration of the online adaptation, consisting of contour editing, plan optimization and quality assurance (QA), was 24 ± 6 min. The GTV was slightly larger (average ± SD: 1.9% ± 9.0%) in the adapted plans than in the reference plans (p < 0.001). GTV-D(95%) exhibited no significant changes when considering all plans, but GTV-D(2%) increased by 0.40% ± 1.5% on average (p < 0.001). There was a very small yet significant decrease in GTV-coverage for the abdomen plans. The ring D(mean) increased on average by 1.0% ± 3.6% considering all plans (p < 0.001). There was a significant reduction of the dose to the rectum of 4.7% ± 16% on average (p < 0.001) for prostate plans. CONCLUSIONS: Dosimetric quality of online-adapted plans was comparable to reference treatment plans and OAR dose was either comparable or decreased, depending on treatment site. However, dose spillage was slightly increased.