Back to Search Start Over

Automated Planning for Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy on the 1.5 T MR-Linac

Authors :
Stefania Naccarato, PhD
Michele Rigo, MD
Roberto Pellegrini, PhD
Peter Voet, PhD
Hafid Akhiat, BSc
Davide Gurrera, PhD
Antonio De Simone, PhD
Gianluisa Sicignano, PhD
Rosario Mazzola, MD
Vanessa Figlia, MD
Francesco Ricchetti, MD
Luca Nicosia, MD
Niccolò Giaj-Levra, MD
Francesco Cuccia, MD
Nadejda Stavreva, PhD
Dobromir S. Pressyanov, PhD
Pavel Stavrev, PhD
Filippo Alongi, MD
Ruggero Ruggieri, PhD
Source :
Advances in Radiation Oncology, Vol 7, Iss 3, Pp 100865- (2022)
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
Elsevier, 2022.

Abstract

Purpose: Adaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PC) by the 1.5 T MR-linac currently requires online planning by an expert user. A fully automated and user-independent solution to adaptive planning (mCycle) of PC-SBRT was compared with user's plans for the 1.5 T MR-linac. Methods and Materials: Fifty adapted plans on daily magnetic resonance imaging scans for 10 patients with PC treated by 35 Gy (prescription dose [Dp]) in 5 fractions were reoptimized offline from scratch, both by an expert planner (manual) and by mCycle. Manual plans consisted of multicriterial optimization (MCO) of the fluence map plus manual tweaking in segmentation, whereas in mCycle plans, the objectives were sequentially optimized by MCO according to an a-priori assigned priority list. The main criteria for planning approval were a dose ≥95% of the Dp to at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), V33.2 (PTV) ≥ 95%, a dose less than the Dp to the hottest cubic centimeter (V35 ≤ 1 cm3) of rectum, bladder, penile bulb, and urethral planning risk volume (ie, urethra plus 3 mm isotropically), and V32 ≤ 5%, V28 ≤ 10%, and V18 ≤ 35% to the rectum. Such dose-volume metrics, plus some efficiency and deliverability metrics, were used for the comparison of mCycle versus manual plans. Results: mCycle plans improved target dose coverage, with V33.2 (PTV) passing on average (±1 SD) from 95.7% (±1.0%) for manual plans to 97.5% (±1.3%) for mCycle plans (P < .001), and rectal dose sparing, with significantly reduced V32, V28, and V18 (P ≤ .004). Although at an equivalent number of segments, mCycle plans consumed moderately more monitor units (+17%) and delivery time (+9%) (P < .001), whereas they were generally faster (–19%) in terms of optimization times (P < .019). No significant differences were found for the passing rates of locally normalized γ (3 mm, 3%) (P = .059) and γ (2 mm, 2%) (P = .432) deliverability metrics. Conclusions: In the offline setting, mCycle proved to be a trustable solution for automated planning of PC-SBRT on the 1.5 T MR-linac. mCycle integration in the online workflow will free the user from the challenging online-optimization task.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
24521094
Volume :
7
Issue :
3
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
Advances in Radiation Oncology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.23fa300ae4eb4146a7e8ecc3ba5061b5
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2021.100865