Recognising the challenges of implementing multi-centre adaptive plan of the day radiotherapy

Two multicentre adaptive radiotherapy trials utilising Plan of the Day (PoD) with a library of plans were introduced in 35 centres. The common issues that arose from all centres when introducing PoD were collated retrospectively, through reviewing the data pertaining to the pre-trial and on-trial quality assurance programme. It was found that 1,295 issues arose when introducing PoD in outlining, planning, treatment delivery i.e., PoD selection, and in the overall process of delivering PoD. There was no difference in the number of issues that arose from pre-trial to on-trial. Thus, it is recommended that the implementation of PoD is supported by guidance, reviews, and continuous monitoring.

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).

Feasibility of cone beam CT-guided library of plans strategy in pre-operative gastric cancer radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The stomach displays large anatomical changes in size, shape and position, which implies the need for plan adaptation for gastric cancer patients who receive pre-operative radiotherapy. We evaluated the feasibility and necessity of a CBCT-guided library of plans (LoP) strategy in gastric cancer radiotherapy.

METHODS

Eight gastric cancer patients treated with 24-25 fractions of single-plan radiotherapy with daily CBCT imaging were included. The target was delineated on the pre-treatment CT and first 5 CBCTs to create a patient-specific LoP. Plan selections were performed by 12 observers in a training stage (2-3 CBCTs per patient) and an assessment stage (17 CBCTs per patient). The observers were asked to select the smallest plan that encompassed the target on the CBCT. A total of 136 plan selections were evaluated in the assessment stage.

RESULTS

Delineations on CBCTs showed that in 90% of the 40 delineated fractions part of the CTV was outside the PTV based on the pre-treatment CT. At least two-thirds of the observers agreed on the selected plan in 65.2% and 70% of the fractions in the training stage and the assessment stage, respectively. For each patient, at least two different plans from the LoP were the most selected plan.

CONCLUSION

A CBCT-guided patient-specific LoP strategy is feasible for gastric cancer patients, yielding good agreement in plan selections. Unless generous margins are used to avoid frequent geometric misses, it is likely that part of the target will be missed with single-plan radiotherapy.

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.