14 research outputs found
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 degrees/30 degrees and 295 degrees/-30 degrees, significantly reduced OAR doses and the dose bath, compared to dual-arc VMAT. Mean relative differences in rectum D-mean, D-1cc, V-40GyEq and V-60GyEq were 19.4 +/- 10.6%, 4.2 +/- 2.7%, 34.9 +/- 20.3%, and 39.7 +/- 23.2%, respectively (all p 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
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
Fully automated treatment planning of spinal metastases – A comparison to manual planning of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for conventionally fractionated irradiation
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.(VLID)365878
Automated volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for whole pelvic prostate radiotherapy Automatisierte volumenmodulierte Arc-Therapieplanung für Ganzbecken-Prostatabestrahlung
markdownabstractBackground: 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
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 +/- 4.7 Gy, 7.9 +/- 6.0 Gy and 4.2 +/- 2.9 Gy, respectively (p <0.001). NTCPs for late grade >= 2 GI toxicity, rectal bleeding and stool incontinence were reduced from 23.3 +/- 9.1% to 19.7 +/- 8.9%, from 9.7 +/- 2.8% to 8.2 +/- 2.8%, and from 16.8 +/- 8.5% to 13.1 +/- 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). (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
Measured treatment delivery times for autoVMAT and autoIMRT using the MLCi2 and Agility MLCs.
<p>Measured treatment delivery times for autoVMAT and autoIMRT using the MLCi2 and Agility MLCs.</p
Validation of Fully Automated VMAT Plan Generation for Library-Based Plan-of-the-Day Cervical Cancer Radiotherapy
<div><p>Purpose</p><p>To develop and validate fully automated generation of VMAT plan-libraries for plan-of-the-day adaptive radiotherapy in locally-advanced cervical cancer.</p><p>Material and Methods</p><p>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 V<sub>45Gy</sub> for small bowel (SB). Other OARs considered were bladder, rectum, and sigmoid.</p><p>Results</p><p>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 V<sub>45Gy</sub> of 34.6% (<i>p</i><0.001). For 41/44 autoVMAT plans, SB V<sub>45Gy</sub> was lower than for manVMAT (<i>p</i><0.001, average reduction 30.3%), while SB V<sub>15Gy</sub> increased by 2.3% (<i>p</i> = 0.011). AutoIMRT reduced SB V<sub>45Gy</sub> by another 2.7% compared to autoVMAT, while also resulting in a 9.0% reduction in SB V<sub>15Gy</sub> (<i>p</i><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.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>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.</p></div
For a study patient, sagittal views of the empty bladder CT scan with the empty-to-half-full-bladder PTV (blue) projected on it (left), and of the full bladder CT scan with the half-full-to-full-bladder PTV (red) on the (right).
<p>The higher degree of concavity of the empty-to-half-full-bladder PTV increases the complexity of small bowel sparing in manual planning.</p
Percentage differences in mean OAR plan parameter values for all evaluated planning strategies, compared to autoVMAT.
<p><b>(a) for all 44 plans, (b) and (c) for the 10 patients with large bladder filling induced PTV displacements.</b> Positive values point at an advantage for autoVMAT. <sup>*</sup>: difference with autoVMAT is statistically significant. Average absolute values for autoVMAT: SB V<sub>45Gy</sub> = 15.4%, SB V<sub>15Gy</sub> = 68.7%, SB D<sub>mean</sub> = 25.5 Gy, Bladder D<sub>mean</sub> = 43.5 Gy, Rectum D<sub>mean</sub> = 42.9 Gy, Sigmoid D<sub>mean</sub> = 42.3 Gy and CI<sub>95%</sub> = 1.174.</p