Online adaptive radiotherapy compared to plan selection for rectal cancer: quantifying the benefit.

BACKGROUND: To compare online adaptive radiation therapy (ART) to a clinically implemented plan selection strategy (PS) with respect to dose to the organs at risk (OAR) for rectal cancer. METHODS: The first 20 patients treated with PS between May-September 2016 were included. This resulted in 10 short (SCRT) and 10 long (LCRT) course radiotherapy treatment schedules with a total of 300 Conebeam CT scans (CBCT). New dual arc VMAT plans were generated using auto-planning for both the online ART and PS strategy. For each fraction bowel bag, bladder and mesorectum were delineated on daily Conebeam CTs. The dose distribution planned was used to calculate daily DVHs. Coverage of the CTV was calculated, as defined by the dose received by 99% of the CTV volume (D99%). The volume of normal tissue irradiated with 95% of the prescribed fraction dose was calculated by calculating the volume receiving 95% of the prescribed fraction or more dose minus the volume of the CTV. For each fraction the difference between the plan selection and online adaptive strategy of each DVH parameter was calculated, as well as the average difference per patient. RESULTS: Target coverage remained the same for online ART. The median volume of the normal tissue irradiated with 95% of the prescribed dose dropped from 642 cm3 (PS) to 237 cm3 (online-ART)(p < 0.001). Online ART reduced dose to the OARs for all tested dose levels for SCRT and LCRT (p < 0.001). For V15Gy of the bowel bag the median difference over all fractions of all patients was - 126 cm3 in LCRT, while the average difference per patient ranged from - 206 cm3 to - 40 cm3. For SCRT the median difference was - 62 cm3, while the range of the average difference per patient was - 105 cm3 to - 51 cm3. For V15Gy of the bladder the median difference over all fractions of all patients was 26% in LCRT, while the average difference per patient ranged from - 34 to 12%. For SCRT the median difference of V95% was - 8%, while the range of the average difference per patient was - 29 to 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Online ART for rectal cancer reduces dose the OARs significantly compared to a clinically implemented plan selection strategy, without compromising target coverage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and was retrospectively approved by the Medical Ethics review Committee of the Academic Medical Center (W19_357 # 19.420; Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).

Dosimetric benefit of an adaptive treatment by means of plan selection for rectal cancer patients in both short and long course radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: To compare target coverage and dose to the organs at risk in two approaches to rectal cancer: a clinically implemented adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy using plan selection, and a non-adaptive (non-ART) strategy. METHODS: The inclusion of the first 20 patients receiving adaptive radiotherapy produced 10 patients with a long treatment schedule (25x2Gy) and 10 patients with a short schedule (5X5Gy). We prepared a library of three plans with different anterior PTV margins to the upper mesorectum, and selected the most appropriate plan on daily Conebeam CT scans (CBCT). We also created a non-adaptive treatment plan with a 20 mm margin. Bowel bag, bladder and target volume were delineated on CBCT. Daily DHVs were calculated based on the dose distribution of the selected and non-adaptive plans. Coverage of the target volume was compared per fraction between the ART and non-ART plans, as was the dose to the bladder and small bowel, assessing the following dose levels: V15Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy, V15Gy and V95% for long treatment schedules, and V15Gy and V95% for short ones. RESULTS: Target volume coverage was maintained from 98.3% (non-ART) to 99.0% (ART)(p = 0.878). In the small bowel, ART appeared to have produced significant reductions in the long treatment schedule at V15Gy, V40Gy, V45Gy and V95% (p <  0.05), but with small absolute differences. The DVH parameters tested for the short treatment schedule did not differ significantly. In the bladder, all DVH parameters in both schedules showed significant reductions (p <  0.05), also with small absolute differences. CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive treatment maintained target coverage and reduced dose to the organs at risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and was retrospectively approved by the Medical Ethics review Committee of the Academic Medical Center, W19_194 # 19.233.

Dosimetric comparison of library of plans and online MRI-guided radiotherapy of cervical cancer in the presence of intrafraction anatomical changes.

BACKGROUND: Online magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy of cervical cancer has the potential to further reduce dose to organs at risk (OAR) as compared to a library of plans (LOP) approach. This study presents a dosimetric comparison of an MRI-guided strategy with a LOP strategy taking intrafraction anatomical changes into account. METHODS: The 14 patients included in this study were treated with chemo radiation at our institute and received weekly MRIs after informed consent. The MRI-guided strategy consisted of treatment plans created on the weekly sagittal MRI with 3 mm and 5 mm planning target volume (PTV) margin for clinical target volume (CTV) cervix-uterus (MRI_3mm and MRI_5mm). The plans for the LOP strategy were based on interpolations of CTV cervix-uterus on pretreatment full and empty bladder scans. Dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters were compared for targets and OARs as delineated on the weekly transversal MRI, which was acquired on average 10 min after the sagittal MRI. RESULTS: For the MRI_5mm strategy D98% of the high-risk CTV was at least 95% for all weekly MRIs of all patients, while for the LOP and MRI_3mm strategy this requirement was not satisfied for at least one weekly MRI for 1 and 3 patients, respectively. The average reduction of the volume of the reference dose (95% of the prescribed dose) as compared to the LOP strategy was 464 cm3 for the MRI_3mm strategy, and 422 cm3 for the MRI_5mm strategy. The bowel bag constraint V40Gy < 350 cm3 was violated for 13 patients for the LOP strategy and for 5 patients for both MRI_3mm and MRI_5mm strategy. CONCLUSIONS: With online MRI-guided radiotherapy of cervical cancer considerable sparing of OARs can be achieved. If a new treatment plan can be generated and delivered within 10 min, an online MRI-guided strategy with a 5 mm PTV margin for CTV cervix-uterus is sufficient to account for intrafraction anatomical changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL44492.018.13.