MU variability in CBCT-guided online adaptive radiation therapy

被引:0
|
作者
Tanny, Sean [1 ,3 ]
Dona Lemus, Olga M. [1 ]
Wancura, Joshua [1 ]
Sperling, Nicholas [2 ]
Webster, Matthew [1 ]
Jung, Hyunuk [1 ]
Zhou, Yuwei [1 ]
Li, Fiona [1 ]
Yoon, Jihyung [1 ]
Podgorsak, Alexander [1 ]
Zheng, Dandan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, New York, NY USA
[2] Univ Toledo, Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Toledo, OH USA
[3] Univ Rochester, Med Ctr, Wilmot Canc Inst, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS | 2024年 / 25卷 / 09期
关键词
adaptive radiotherapy; CBCT-based adaptive RT; ethos-based adaptive; MU variability; patient specific QA; plan QA; APERTURE COMPLEXITY;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.14440
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PurposeCBCT-guided online-adaptive radiotherapy (oART) systems have been made possible by using artificial intelligence and automation to substantially reduce treatment planning time during on-couch adaptive sessions. Evaluating plans generated during an adaptive session presents significant challenges to the clinical team as the planning process gets compressed into a shorter window than offline planning. We identified MU variations up to 30% difference between the adaptive plan and the reference plan in several oART sessions that caused the clinical team to question the accuracy of the oART dose calculation. We investigated the cause of MU variation and the overall accuracy of the dose delivered when MU variations appear unnecessarily large.MethodsDosimetric and adaptive plan data from 604 adaptive sessions of 19 patients undergoing CBCT-guided oART were collected. The analysis included total MU per fraction, planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) volumes, changes in PTV-OAR overlap, and DVH curves. Sessions with MU greater than two standard deviations from the mean were reoptimized offline, verified by an independent calculation system, and measured using a detector array.ResultsMU variations relative to the reference plan were normally distributed with a mean of -1.0% and a standard deviation of 11.0%. No significant correlation was found between MU variation and anatomic changes. Offline reoptimization did not reliably reproduce either reference or on-couch total MUs, suggesting that stochastic effects within the oART optimizer are likely causing the variations. Independent dose calculation and detector array measurements resulted in acceptable agreement with the planned dose.ConclusionsMU variations observed between oART plans were not caused by any errors within the oART workflow. Providers should refrain from using MU variability as a way to express their confidence in the treatment planning accuracy. Clinical decisions during on-couch adaptive sessions should rely on validated secondary dose calculations to ensure optimal plan selection.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Long-term Follow-up Results of CT-guided Daily Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
    Hama, Yukihiro
    Kaji, Tatsumi
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 38 (10) : 5959 - 5962
  • [32] An Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist Improves Contouring Timing for Online Adaptive Radiotherapy
    Beckert, Robert
    Schiff, Joshua
    Morris, Eric
    Samson, Pamela
    Kim, Hyun
    Laugeman, Eric
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2024, 194 : S5775 - S5776
  • [33] Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancers
    Lavigne, Danny
    Ng, Sweet Ping
    O'Sullivan, Brian
    Nguyen-Tan, Phuc Felix
    Filion, Edith
    Letourneau-Guillon, Laurent
    Fuller, Clifton D.
    Bahig, Houda
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2022, 29 (11) : 8302 - 8315
  • [34] Image guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer; how, when and why?
    Escande, A.
    Supiot, S.
    CANCER RADIOTHERAPIE, 2018, 22 (6-7): : 586 - 592
  • [35] Current Progress in Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer
    David L. Schwartz
    Current Oncology Reports, 2012, 14 : 139 - 147
  • [36] A Hardware-Accelerated Software Platform for Adaptive Radiation Therapy
    Park, Seyoun
    Plishker, William
    Robinson, Adam
    Zaki, George
    Shekhar, Raj
    McNutt, Todd
    Quon, Harry
    Wong, John
    Lee, Junghoon
    WORLD CONGRESS ON MEDICAL PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2015, 51 : 509 - 512
  • [37] A feasibility study of adaptive radiation therapy for postprostatectomy prostate cancer
    Meyers, Sandra M.
    Winter, Jeff D.
    Obeidi, Yazan
    Chung, Peter
    Menard, Cynthia
    Warde, Padraig
    Fong, Heng
    Mcpartlin, Andrew
    Parameswaran, Saibishkumar
    Berlin, Alejandro
    Bayley, Andrew
    Catton, Charles
    Craig, Tim
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2024, 49 (02) : 150 - 158
  • [38] Current Progress in Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer
    Schwartz, David L.
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY REPORTS, 2012, 14 (02) : 139 - 147
  • [39] Widening the therapeutic window for central and ultra-central thoracic oligometastatic disease with stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART)
    Lee, Grace
    Han, Zhaohui
    Huynh, Elizabeth
    Tjong, Michael C.
    Cagney, Daniel N.
    Huynh, Mai Anh
    Kann, Benjamin H.
    Kozono, David
    Leeman, Jonathan E.
    Singer, Lisa
    Williams, Christopher L.
    Mak, Raymond H.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2024, 190
  • [40] Evaluation of CBCT scatter correction using deep convolutional neural networks for head and neck adaptive proton therapy
    Lalonde, Arthur
    Winey, Brian
    Verburg, Joost
    Paganetti, Harald
    Sharp, Gregory C.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2020, 65 (24):