Evaluation of two independent dose prediction methods to personalize the automated radiotherapy planning process for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Currently, automatic approaches for radiotherapy planning are widely used, however creation of high quality treatment plans is still challenging. In this study, two independent dose prediction methods were used to personalize the initial settings for the automated planning template for optimizing prostate cancer treatment plans. This study evaluated the dose metrics of these plans comparing both methods with the current clinical automated prostate cancer treatment plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Datasets of 20 high-risk prostate cancer treatment plans were taken from our clinical database. The prescription dose for these plans was 70 Gy given in fractions of 2.5 Gy. Plans were replanned using the current clinical automated treatment and compared with two personalized automated planning methods. The feasibility dose volume histogram (FDVH) and modified filter back projection (mFBP) methods were used to calculate independent dose predictions. Parameters for the initial objective values of the planning template were extracted from these predictions and used to personalize the optimization of the automated planning process. RESULTS: The current automated replanned clinical plans and the automated plans optimized with the personalized template methods fulfilled the clinical dose criteria. For both methods a reduction in the average mean dose of the rectal wall was found, from 22.5 to 20.1 Gy for the FDVH and from 22.5 to 19.6 Gy for the mFBP method. CONCLUSIONS: With both dose-prediction methods the initial settings of the template could be personalized. Hereby, the average dose to the rectal wall was reduced compared to the standard template method.

Radiotherapy quality assurance for mesorectum treatment planning within the multi-center phase II STAR-TReC trial: Dutch results.

BACKGROUND: The STAR-TReC trial is an international multi-center, randomized, phase II study assessing the feasibility of short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy as an alternative to total mesorectal excision surgery. A new target volume is used for both (chemo)radiotherapy arms which includes only the mesorectum. The treatment planning QA revealed substantial variation in dose to organs at risk (OAR) between centers. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the treatment plan variability in terms of dose to OAR and assess the effect of a national study group meeting on the quality and variability of treatment plans for mesorectum-only planning for rectal cancer. METHODS: Eight centers produced 25 × 2 Gy treatment plans for five cases. The OAR were the bowel cavity, bladder and femoral heads. A study group meeting for the participating centers was organized to discuss the planning results. At the meeting, the values of the treatment plan DVH parameters were distributed among centers so that results could be compared. Subsequently, the centers were invited to perform replanning if they considered this to be necessary. RESULTS: All treatment plans, both initial planning and replanning, fulfilled the target constraints. Dose to OAR varied considerably for the initial planning, especially for dose levels below 20 Gy, indicating that there was room for trade-offs between the defined OAR. Five centers performed replanning for all cases. One center did not perform replanning at all and two centers performed replanning on two and three cases, respectively. On average, replanning reduced the bowel cavity V20Gy by 12.6%, bowel cavity V10Gy by 22.0%, bladder V35Gy by 14.7% and bladder V10Gy by 10.8%. In 26/30 replanned cases the V10Gy of both the bowel cavity and bladder was lower, indicating an overall lower dose to these OAR instead of a different trade-off. In addition, the bowel cavity V10Gy and V20Gy showed more similarity between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Dose to OAR varied considerably between centers, especially for dose levels below 20 Gy. The study group meeting and the distribution of the initial planning results among centers resulted in lower dose to the defined OAR and reduced variability between centers after replanning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The STAR-TReC trial, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945566. Registered 26 October 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02945566).

Stereotactic radiotherapy boost after definite chemoradiation for non-responding locally advanced NSCLC based on early response monitoring 18F-FDG-PET/CT.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prognosis of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer remains poor despite chemoradiation. This planning study evaluated a stereotactic boost after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (30 × 2 Gy) to improve local control. The maximum achievable boost directed to radioresistant primary tumor subvolumes based on pre-treatment fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) (pre-treatment-PET) and on early response monitoring 18F-FDG-PET/CT (ERM-PET) was compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For ten patients, a stereotactic boost (VMAT) was planned on ERM-PET (PTVboost;ERM) and on pre-treatment-PET (PTVboost;pre-treatment), using a 70% SUVmax threshold with 7 mm margin to segmentate radioresistant subvolumes. Dose was escalated till organ at risk (OAR) constraints were met, aiming to plan at least 18 Gy in 3 fractions (EQD2 84 Gy/BED 100.8 Gy). RESULTS: In five patients, PTVboost;ERM was 9-40% smaller relative to PTVboost;pre-treatment. Overlap of PTVboost;ERM with OARs decreased also compared to overlap of PTVboost;pre-treatment with OARs. However, any overlap with OAR remained in 4/5 patients resulting in minimal differences between planned dose before and during treatment. Median dose (EQD2) covering 99% and 95% of PTVboost;ERM were 15 Gy and 18 Gy respectively. Median boost volume receiving a physical dose of  ≥ 18 Gy (V18) was 88%. V18 was ≥ 80% for PTVboost in six patients. CONCLUSIONS: A significant stereotactic boost to volumes with high initial or persistent 18F-FDG-uptake could be planned above 60 Gy chemoradiation. Differences between planned dose before and during treatment were minimal. However, as an ERM-PET also monitors changes in tumor position, we recommend to plan the boost on the ERM-PET.