Complementing Prostate SBRT VMAT With a Two-Beam Non-Coplanar IMRT Class Solution to Enhance Rectum and Bladder Sparing With Minimum Increase in Treatment Time.

PURPOSE: Enhance rectum and bladder sparing in prostate SBRT with minimum increase in treatment time by complementing dual-arc coplanar VMAT with a two-beam non-coplanar IMRT class solution (CS). METHODS: For twenty patients, an optimizer for automated multi-criterial planning with integrated beam angle optimization (BAO) was used to generate dual-arc VMAT plans, supplemented with five non-coplanar IMRT beams with individually optimized orientations (VMAT+5). In all plan generations, reduction of high rectum dose had the highest priority after obtaining adequate PTV coverage. A CS with two most preferred directions in VMAT+5 and largest rectum dose reductions compared to dual-arc VMAT was then selected to define VMAT+CS. VMAT+CS was compared with automatically generated i) dual-arc coplanar VMAT plans (VMAT), ii) VMAT+5 plans, and iii) IMRT plans with 30 patient-specific non-coplanar beam orientations (30-NCP). Plans were generated for a 4 x 9.5 Gy fractionation scheme. Differences in PTV doses, healthy tissue sparing, and computation and treatment delivery times were quantified. RESULTS: For equal PTV coverage, VMAT+CS, consisting of dual-arc VMAT supplemented with two fixed, non-coplanar IMRT beams with fixed Gantry/Couch angles of 65°/30° and 295°/-30°, significantly reduced OAR doses and the dose bath, compared to dual-arc VMAT. Mean relative differences in rectum Dmean, D1cc, V40GyEq and V60GyEq were 19.4 ± 10.6%, 4.2 ± 2.7%, 34.9 ± 20.3%, and 39.7 ± 23.2%, respectively (all p<0.001). There was no difference in bladder D1cc, while bladder Dmean reduced by 17.9 ± 11.0% (p<0.001). Also, the clinically evaluated urethra D5%, D10%, and D50% showed small, but statistically significant improvements. All patient VX with X = 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30 Gy were reduced with VMAT+CS, with a maximum relative reduction for V10Gy of 19.0 ± 7.3% (p<0.001). Total delivery times with VMAT+CS only increased by 1.9 ± 0.7 min compared to VMAT (9.1 ± 0.7 min). The dosimetric quality of VMAT+CS plans was equivalent to VMAT+5, while optimization times were reduced by a factor of 25 due to avoidance of individualized BAO. Compared to VMAT+CS, the 30-NCP plans were only favorable in terms of dose bath, at the cost of much enhanced optimization and delivery times. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed two-beam non-coplanar class solution to complement coplanar dual-arc VMAT resulted in substantial plan quality improvements for OARs (especially rectum) and reduced irradiated patient volumes with minor increases in treatment delivery times.

Lower doses to hippocampi and other brain structures for skull-base meningiomas with intensity modulated proton therapy compared to photon therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy of skull-base meningiomas is challenging due to the close proximity of multiple sensitive organs at risk (OARs). This study systematically compared intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) based on automated treatment planning. Differences in OARs sparing, with specific focus on the hippocampi, and low-dose delivery were quantified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients, target diameter >3 cm, were included. Automated plan generation was used to calculate a VMAT plan with three non-coplanar arcs, an IMRT plan with nine non-coplanar beams with optimized gantry and couch angles, and an IMPT plan with three patient-specific selected non-coplanar beams. A prescription dose of 50.4 GyRBE in 28 fractions was used. The same set of constraints and prioritized objectives was used. All plans were rescaled to the same target coverage. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the statistical significance of differences in OAR dose parameters between planning techniques. RESULTS: Compared to VMAT and IMRT, IMPT significantly improved dose conformity to the target volume. Consequently, large dose reductions in OARs were observed. With respect to VMAT, the mean dose and D40% in the bilateral hippocampus were on average reduced by 48% and 74%, respectively (p ≤ 0.005). With IMPT, the mean dose in the normal brain and volumes receiving 20-30 Gy were up to 47% lower (p ≤ 0.01). When comparing IMPT and IMRT, even larger dose differences in those OARs were observed. CONCLUSION: For skull-base meningiomas IMPT allows for a considerable dose reduction in the hippocampi, normal brain and other OARs compared to both non-coplanar VMAT and IMRT, which may lead to a clinically relevant reduction of late neurocognitive side effects.

Late toxicity in the randomized multicenter HYPRO trial for prostate cancer analyzed with automated treatment planning.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Assess to what extent the use of automated treatment planning would have reduced organ-at-risk dose delivery observed in the randomized HYPRO trial for prostate cancer, and estimate related toxicity reductions. Investigate to what extent improved plan quality for hypofractionation scheme as achieved with automated planning can potentially reduce observed enhanced toxicity for the investigated hypofractionation scheme to levels observed for conventional fractionation scheme. MATERIAL/METHODS: For 725 trial patients, VMAT plans were generated with an algorithm for automated multi-criterial plan generation (autoVMAT). All clinically delivered plans (CLINICAL), generated with commonly applied interactive trial-and-error planning were also available for the investigations. Analyses were based on dose-volume histograms (DVH) and predicted normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. RESULTS: Compared to CLINICAL, autoVMAT plans had similar or higher PTV coverage, while large and statistically significant OAR sparing was achieved. Mean doses in the rectum, anus and bladder were reduced by 7.8 ±â€¯4.7 Gy, 7.9 ±â€¯6.0 Gy and 4.2 ±â€¯2.9 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001). NTCPs for late grade ≥2 GI toxicity, rectal bleeding and stool incontinence were reduced from 23.3 ±â€¯9.1% to 19.7 ±â€¯8.9%, from 9.7 ±â€¯2.8% to 8.2 ±â€¯2.8%, and from 16.8 ±â€¯8.5% to 13.1 ±â€¯7.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). Reductions in rectal bleeding NTCP were observed for all published Equivalent Uniform Dose volume parameters, n. AutoVMAT allowed hypofractionation with predicted toxicity similar to conventional fractionation with CLINICAL plans. CONCLUSION: Compared to CLINICAL, autoVMAT had superior plan quality, with meaningful NTCP reductions for both conventional fractionation and hypofractionation schemes. AutoVMAT plans might reduce toxicity for hypofractionation to levels that were clinically observed (and accepted) for conventional fractionation. This may be relevant when considering clinical use of the investigated hypofractionation schedule with relatively high fraction dose (3.4 Gy).

Automated VMAT planning for postoperative adjuvant treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer involves a large planning target volume (PTV) with multi-concave shapes which presents a challenge for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. This study investigates the advantages of automated VMAT planning for this site compared to manual VMAT planning by expert planners. METHODS: For 20 gastric cancer patients in the postoperative/adjuvant setting, dual-arc VMAT plans were generated using fully automated multi-criterial treatment planning (autoVMAT), and compared to manually generated VMAT plans (manVMAT). Both automated and manual plans were created to deliver a median dose of 45 Gy to the PTV using identical planning and segmentation parameters. Plans were evaluated by two expert radiation oncologists for clinical acceptability. AutoVMAT and manVMAT plans were also compared based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) and predicted normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis. RESULTS: Both manVMAT and autoVMAT plans were considered clinically acceptable. Target coverage was similar (manVMAT: 96.6 ± 1.6%, autoVMAT: 97.4 ± 1.0%, p = 0.085). With autoVMAT, median kidney dose was reduced on average by > 25%; (for left kidney from 11.3 ± 2.1 Gy to 8.9 ± 3.5 Gy (p = 0.002); for right kidney from 9.2 ± 2.2 Gy to 6.1 ± 1.3 Gy (p <  0.001)). Median dose to the liver was lower as well (18.8 ± 2.3 Gy vs. 17.1 ± 3.6 Gy, p = 0.048). In addition, Dmax of the spinal cord was significantly reduced (38.3 ± 3.7 Gy vs. 31.6 ± 2.6 Gy, p <  0.001). Substantial improvements in dose conformity and integral dose were achieved with autoVMAT plans (4.2% and 9.1%, respectively; p <  0.001). Due to the better OAR sparing in the autoVMAT plans compared to manVMAT plans, the predicted NTCPs for the left and right kidney and the liver-PTV were significantly reduced by 11.3%, 12.8%, 7%, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Delivery time and total number of monitor units were increased in autoVMAT plans (from 168 ± 19 s to 207 ± 26 s, p = 0.006) and (from 781 ± 168 MU to 1001 ± 134 MU, p = 0.003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For postoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer, involving a complex target shape, automated VMAT planning is feasible and can substantially reduce the dose to the kidneys and the liver, without compromising the target dose delivery.

Automated volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for whole pelvic prostate radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: For several tumor entities, automated treatment planning has improved plan quality and planning efficiency, and may enable adaptive treatment approaches. Whole-pelvic prostate radiotherapy (WPRT) involves large concave target volumes, which present a challenge for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) optimization. This study evaluates automated VMAT planning for WPRT-VMAT and compares the results with manual expert planning. METHODS: A system for fully automated multi-criterial plan generation was configured for each step of sequential-boost WPRT-VMAT, with final "autoVMAT" plans being automatically calculated by the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS; Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Configuration was based on manually generated VMAT plans (manualVMAT) of 5 test patients, the planning protocol, and discussions with the treating physician on wishes for plan improvements. AutoVMAT plans were then generated for another 30 evaluation patients and compared to manualVMAT plans. For all 35 patients, manualVMAT plans were optimized by expert planners using the Monaco TPS. RESULTS: AutoVMAT plans exhibited strongly improved organ sparing and higher conformity compared to manualVMAT. On average, mean doses (Dmean) of bladder and rectum were reduced by 10.7 and 4.5 Gy, respectively, by autoVMAT. Prostate target coverage (V95%) was slightly higher (+0.6%) with manualVMAT. In a blinded scoring session, the radiation oncologist preferred autoVMAT plans to manualVMAT plans for 27/30 patients. All treatment plans were considered clinically acceptable. The workload per patient was reduced by > 70 min. CONCLUSION: Automated VMAT planning for complex WPRT dose distributions is feasible and creates treatment plans that are generally dosimetrically superior to manually optimized plans.

The TRENDY multi-center randomized trial on hepatocellular carcinoma - Trial QA including automated treatment planning and benchmark-case results.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The TRENDY trial is an international multi-center phase-II study, randomizing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients between transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with a target dose of 48-54 Gy in six fractions. The radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) program, including prospective plan feedback based on automated treatment planning, is described and results are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Scans of a single patient were used as a benchmark case. Contours submitted by nine participating centers were compared with reference contours. The subsequent planning round was based on a single set of contours. A total of 20 plans from participating centers, including 12 from the benchmark case, 5 from a clinical pilot and 3 from the first study patients, were compared to automatically generated VMAT plans. RESULTS: For the submitted liver contours, Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC) with the reference delineation ranged from 0.925 to 0.954. For the GTV, the DSC varied between 0.721 and 0.876. For the 12 plans on the benchmark case, healthy liver normal-tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) ranged from 0.2% to 22.2% with little correlation between NCTP and PTV-D95% (R2 < 0.3). Four protocol deviations were detected in the set of 20 treatment plans. Comparison with co-planar autoVMAT QA plans revealed these were due to too high target dose and suboptimal planning. Overall, autoVMAT resulted in an average liver NTCP reduction of 2.2 percent point (range: 16.2 percent point to -1.8 percent point, p = 0.03), and lower doses to the healthy liver (p < 0.01) and gastrointestinal organs at risk (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delineation variation resulted in feedback to participating centers. Automated treatment planning can play an important role in clinical trials for prospective plan QA as suboptimal plans were detected.

VMAT plus a few computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beams (VMAT+) tested for liver SBRT.

PURPOSE: To propose a novel treatment approach, designated VMAT+, involving addition of <5 IMRT beams with computer-optimized non-coplanar orientations to VMAT, and evaluate it for liver Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). VMAT+ is investigated as an alternative for (1) coplanar VMAT and (2) multi-beam non-coplanar treatment. METHODS/MATERIALS: For fifteen patients with liver metastases, VMAT+ plans were compared with (1) dual-arc VMAT and (2) 25-beam, non-coplanar treatment with computer-optimized beam orientations (25-NCP). All plans were generated fully automatically for delivery of the highest feasible tumor Biologically Effective Dose (BED). OAR doses, intermediate-dose-spillage, dose-compactness, and measured delivery times were evaluated. RESULTS: With VMAT+ the maximum achievable tumor BED was equal to that of 25-NCP. Conversely, VMAT resulted in a lower tumor BED in 5 patients. Compared to VMAT, VMAT+ yielded significant dose reductions in OARs. Intermediate-dose-spillage and dose-compactness were significantly improved by 9.8% and 17.3% (p≤0.002), respectively. Treatment times with VMAT+ were only enhanced by 4.1min on average, compared to VMAT (8.4min). Improvements in OAR sparing with 25-NCP, compared to VMAT+, were generally modest and/or statistically insignificant, while delivery times were on average 20.5min longer. CONCLUSIONS: For liver SBRT, VMAT+ is equivalent to time-consuming treatment with 25 non-coplanar beams in terms of achievable tumor BED. Compared to VMAT, OAR sparing and intermediate-dose-spillage are significantly improved, with minor increase in delivery time.

Fully automated treatment planning of spinal metastases - A comparison to manual planning of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for conventionally fractionated irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) may be time consuming and its use is limited by available staff resources. Automated multicriterial treatment planning can eliminate this bottleneck. We compared automatically created (auto) VMAT plans generated by Erasmus-iCycle to manually created VMAT plans for treatment of spinal metastases. METHODS: Forty-two targets in 32 patients were analyzed. Lungs and kidneys were defined as organs at risk (OARs). Twenty-two patients received radiotherapy on kidney levels, 17 on lung levels, and 3 on both levels. RESULTS: All Erasmus-iCycle plans were clinically acceptable. When compared to manual plans, planning target volume (PTV) coverage of auto plans was significantly better. The Homogeneity Index did not differ significantly between the groups. Mean dose to OARs was lower in auto plans concerning both kidneys and the left lung. One hotspot (>110% of D50%) occurred in the spinal cord of one auto plan (33.2 Gy, D50%: 30 Gy). Treatment time was 7% longer in auto plans. CONCLUSIONS: Erasmus-iCycle plans showed better target coverage and sparing of OARs at the expense of minimally longer treatment times (for which no constraint was set).

Validation of Fully Automated VMAT Plan Generation for Library-Based Plan-of-the-Day Cervical Cancer Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate fully automated generation of VMAT plan-libraries for plan-of-the-day adaptive radiotherapy in locally-advanced cervical cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our framework for fully automated treatment plan generation (Erasmus-iCycle) was adapted to create dual-arc VMAT treatment plan libraries for cervical cancer patients. For each of 34 patients, automatically generated VMAT plans (autoVMAT) were compared to manually generated, clinically delivered 9-beam IMRT plans (CLINICAL), and to dual-arc VMAT plans generated manually by an expert planner (manVMAT). Furthermore, all plans were benchmarked against 20-beam equi-angular IMRT plans (autoIMRT). For all plans, a PTV coverage of 99.5% by at least 95% of the prescribed dose (46 Gy) had the highest planning priority, followed by minimization of V45Gy for small bowel (SB). Other OARs considered were bladder, rectum, and sigmoid. RESULTS: All plans had a highly similar PTV coverage, within the clinical constraints (above). After plan normalizations for exactly equal median PTV doses in corresponding plans, all evaluated OAR parameters in autoVMAT plans were on average lower than in the CLINICAL plans with an average reduction in SB V45Gy of 34.6% (p<0.001). For 41/44 autoVMAT plans, SB V45Gy was lower than for manVMAT (p<0.001, average reduction 30.3%), while SB V15Gy increased by 2.3% (p = 0.011). AutoIMRT reduced SB V45Gy by another 2.7% compared to autoVMAT, while also resulting in a 9.0% reduction in SB V15Gy (p<0.001), but with a prolonged delivery time. Differences between manVMAT and autoVMAT in bladder, rectal and sigmoid doses were ≤ 1%. Improvements in SB dose delivery with autoVMAT instead of manVMAT were higher for empty bladder PTVs compared to full bladder PTVs, due to differences in concavity of the PTVs. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of automatically generated VMAT plans was superior to manually generated plans. Automatic VMAT plan generation for cervical cancer has been implemented in our clinical routine. Due to the achieved workload reduction, extension of plan libraries has become feasible.

Comparison of VMAT and IMRT strategies for cervical cancer patients using automated planning.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In a published study on cervical cancer, 5-beam IMRT was inferior to single arc VMAT. Here we compare 9, 12, and 20 beam IMRT with single and dual arc VMAT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each of 10 patients, automated plan generation with the in-house Erasmus-iCycle optimizer was used to assist an expert planner in generating the five plans with the clinical TPS. RESULTS: For each patient, all plans were clinically acceptable with a high and similar PTV coverage. OAR sparing increased when going from 9 to 12 to 20 IMRT beams, and from single to dual arc VMAT. For all patients, 12 and 20 beam IMRT were superior to single and dual arc VMAT, with substantial variations in gain among the study patients. As expected, delivery of VMAT plans was significantly faster than delivery of IMRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: Often reported increased plan quality for VMAT compared to IMRT has not been observed for cervical cancer. Twenty and 12 beam IMRT plans had a higher quality than single and dual arc VMAT. For individual patients, the optimal delivery technique depends on a complex trade-off between plan quality and treatment time that may change with introduction of faster delivery systems.