Updating approach for lexicographic optimization-based planning to improve cervical cancer plan quality

BACKGROUND

To investigate the capability of a not-yet commercially available fully automated lexicographic optimization (LO) planning algorithm, called mCycle (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden), to further improve the plan quality of an already-validated Wish List (WL) pushing on the organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing without compromising target coverage and plan delivery accuracy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-four mono-institutional consecutive cervical cancer Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans delivered between November 2019 and April 2022 (50 Gy/25 fractions) have been retrospectively selected. In mCycle the LO planning algorithm was combined with the a-priori multi-criterial optimization (MCO). Two versions of WL have been defined to reproduce manual plans (WL01), and to improve the OAR sparing without affecting minimum target coverage and plan delivery accuracy (WL02). Robust WLs have been tuned using a subset of 4 randomly selected patients. The remaining plans have been automatically re-planned by using the designed WLs. Manual plans (MP) and mCycle plans (mCP01 and mCP02) were compared in terms of dose distributions, complexity, delivery accuracy, and clinical acceptability. Two senior physicians independently performed a blind clinical evaluation, ranking the three competing plans. Furthermore, a previous defined global quality index has been used to gather into a single score the plan quality evaluation.

RESULTS

The WL tweaking requests 5 and 3 working days for the WL01 and the WL02, respectively. The re-planning took in both cases 3 working days. mCP01 best performed in terms of target coverage (PTV V95% (%): MP 98.0 [95.6-99.3], mCP01 99.2 [89.7-99.9], mCP02 96.9 [89.4-99.5]), while mCP02 showed a large OAR sparing improvement, especially in the rectum parameters (e.g., Rectum D50% (Gy): MP 41.7 [30.2-47.0], mCP01 40.3 [31.4-45.8], mCP02 32.6 [26.9-42.6]). An increase in plan complexity has been registered in mCPs without affecting plan delivery accuracy. In the blind comparisons, all automated plans were considered clinically acceptable, and mCPs were preferred over MP in 90% of cases. Globally, automated plans registered a plan quality score at least comparable to MP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed the flexibility of the Lexicographic approach in creating more demanding Wish Lists able to potentially minimize toxicities in RT plans.

Cochlear sparing in LINAC-based radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc, IMRT and VMAT treatment plans

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is the preferred treatment for vestibular schwannoma (VS) in patients with preserved hearing and tumour diameter < 3 cm. Emerging evidence suggests restricting cochlear dose could preserve hearing. This retrospective replanning study aims to compare dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for superiority of cochlear dose sparing without compromising tumour coverage.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included sporadic VS, serviceable hearing and availability of CT and MRI for planning. The original gross tumour volume and brainstem OAR volume were retained; the cochlea was newly contoured on the planning CT scan (bone window). Each case was replanned using the three above techniques, prescribing 12 Gy to the 80% isodose line. No dose constraint was applied to the cochlea.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were replanned. Mean tumour volume was 2.25 cc. Tumour coverage and tumour mean dose (DCAT: 14.2, IMRT: 14.6, VMAT: 14.5 Gy) were comparable. Paddick and RTOG conformity indices were better for DCAT (0.66 and 1.6) and VMAT (0.69 and 1.5) compared to IMRT (0.56 and 1.9). DCAT had superior gradient index (3.0) compared to VMAT (3.4) and IMRT (3.4). VMAT delivered the lowest mean brainstem maximum dose (8.3 Gy) and decreased the mean cochlear dose (3.4 Gy) by 2.3 and 2.1 Gy, and the mean cochlear maximum dose (3.6 Gy) by 2.4 and 2.5 Gy relative to DCAT and IMRT, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LINAC-based SRS treatment using VMAT can achieve better cochlear dose sparing than DCAT or IMRT while maintaining tumour coverage.

Dosimetric comparison between VMAT plans using the fast-rotating O-ring linac with dual-layer stacked MLC and helical tomotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To compare the dosimetric profiles of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the fast-rotating O-ring linac (the Halcyon system) based on a dual-layer stacked multi-leaf collimator and helical tomotherapy (HT) for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPCa).

METHODS

For 30 NPCa patients, three sets of RT plans were generated, under the same policy of contouring and dose constraints: HT plan; Halcyon VMAT plan with two arcs (HL_2arc); and Halcyon VMAT plan with four arcs (HL_4arc), respectively. The intended dose schedule was to deliver 67.2 Gy to the planning gross target volume (P-GTV) and 56.0 Gy to the planning clinical target volume (P-CTV) in 28 fractions using the simultaneously integrated boost concept. Target volumes and organ at risks dose metrics were evaluated for all plans. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for esophagus, parotid glands, spinal cord, and brain stem were compared.

RESULTS

The HT plan achieved the best dose homogeneity index for both P_GTV and P_CTV, followed by the HL_4arc and L_2arc plans. No significant difference in the dose conformity index (CI) for P_GTV was observed between the HT plan (0.80) and either the HL_2arc plan (0.79) or the HL_4arc plan (0.83). The HL_4arc plan showed the best CI for P_CTV (0.88), followed by the HL_2arc plan (0.83) and the HT plan (0.80). The HL_4arc plan (median, interquartile rage (Q1, Q3): 25.36 (22.22, 26.89) Gy) showed the lowest D_mean in the parotid glands, followed by the HT (25.88 (23.87, 27.87) Gy) and HL_2arc plans (28.00 (23.24, 33.99) Gy). In the oral cavity (OC) dose comparison, the HT (22.03 (19.79, 24.85) Gy) plan showed the lowest D_mean compared to the HL_2arc (23.96 (20.84, 28.02) Gy) and HL_4arc (24.14 (20.17, 27.53) Gy) plans. Intermediate and low dose regions (40-65% of the prescribed dose) were well fit to the target volume in HL_4arc, compared to the HT and HL_2arc plans. All plans met the dose constraints for the other OARs with sufficient dose margins. The between-group differences in the median NTCP values for the parotid glands and OC were < 3.47% and < 1.7% points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The dosimetric profiles of Halcyon VMAT plans were comparable to that of HT, and HL_4arc showed better dosimetric profiles than HL_2arc for NPCa.

Radiotherapy Treatment plannINg study Guidelines (RATING): A framework for setting up and reporting on scientific treatment planning studies

Radiotherapy treatment planning studies contribute significantly  to advances and improvements in radiation treatment of cancer patients. They are a pivotal step to support and facilitate the introduction of novel techniques into clinical practice, or as a first step before clinical trials can be carried out. There have been numerous examples published in the literature that demonstrated the feasibility of such techniques as IMRT, VMAT, IMPT, or that compared different treatment methods (e.g. non-coplanar vs coplanar treatment), or investigated planning approaches (e.g. automated planning). However, for a planning study to generate trustworthy new knowledge and give confidence in applying its findings, then its design, execution and reporting all need to meet high scientific standards. This paper provides a 'quality framework' of recommendations and guidelines that can contribute to the quality of planning studies and resulting publications. Throughout the text, questions are posed and, if applicable to a specific study and if met, they can be answered positively in the provided 'RATING' score sheet. A normalised weighted-sum score can then be calculated from the answers as a quality indicator. The score sheet can also be used to suggest how the quality might be improved, e.g. by focussing on questions with high weight, or by encouraging consideration of aspects given insufficient attention. Whilst the overall aim of this framework and scoring system is to improve the scientific quality of treatment planning studies and papers, it might also be used by reviewers and journal editors to help to evaluate scientific manuscripts reporting planning studies.

Impact of beam configuration on VMAT plan quality for Pinnacle3Auto-Planning for head and neck cases

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare automatically generated VMAT plans to find the superior beam configurations for Pinnacle³ Auto-Planning and share “best practices”.

Methods

VMAT plans for 20 patients with head and neck cancer were generated using Pinnacle³ Auto-Planning Module (Pinnacle³ Version 9.10) with different beam setup parameters. VMAT plans for single (V1) or double arc (V2) and partial or full gantry rotation were optimized. Beam configurations with different collimator positions were defined. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk were evaluated based on scoring of an evaluation parameter set. Furthermore, dosimetric evaluation was performed based on the composite objective value (COV) and a new cross comparison method was applied using the COVs.

Results

The evaluation showed a superior plan quality for double arcs compared to one single arc or two single arcs for all cases. Plan quality was superior if a full gantry rotation was allowed during optimization for unilateral target volumes. A double arc technique with collimator setting of 15° was superior to a double arc with collimator 60° and a two single arcs with collimator setting of 15° and 345°.

Conclusion

The evaluation showed that double and full arcs are superior to single and partial arcs in terms of organs at risk sparing even for unilateral target volumes. The collimator position was found as an additional setup parameter, which can further improve the target coverage and sparing of organs at risk.

A dosimetric comparison of IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for brain tumors

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Helical tomotherapy (HT) can deliver highly conformal, uniform doses to the target volume. However, HT can only be delivered in a coplanar mode. The purpose of this study was to perform a dosimetric comparison of HT versus coplanar (cIMRT) and non-coplanar (n-cIMRT) beam arrangements on a conventional linear accelerator in a diverse group of brain tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 45 treatment plans were calculated retrospectively for 15 cases. For each case, 3 different delivery techniques (n-cIMRT, cIMRT and HT) were used. The treatment plans were compared using the parameters of the target coverage (conformity index; CI) and homogeneity (HI) for the planning target volume (PTV) and the maximum and mean doses for organs at risk (OARs).

RESULTS

Median HI and CI were the best for HT plans and the worst for cIMRT. The largest reduction of maximum dose for lenses and mean dose for both eyes was achieved for n-cIMRT plans. Mean dose for chiasm and the ipsilateral optic nerve were the lowest for HT. The contralateral optic nerve was most spared with n-cIMRT. For D1% in the brain stem, there was no significant difference between HT and the IMRT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Both HT and n-cIMRT are capable of producing conformal and homogeneous treatment plans with a good sparing of OARs. However, due to the non-coplanar capabilities of IMRT, n-cIMRT led to a superior dose reduction to the lenses.