Advancing knowledge-based intensity modulated proton planning for adaptive treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

被引:0
|
作者
Johnson, Casey L. [1 ]
Hasan, Shaakir [1 ]
Huang, Sheng [1 ]
Lin, Haibo [1 ,2 ]
Gorovets, Daniel [1 ,2 ]
Shim, Andy [1 ]
Apgar, Thomas [1 ]
Yu, Francis [1 ]
Tsai, Pingfang [1 ]
机构
[1] New York Proton Ctr, 225 East 126th St, New York, NY 10035 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, New York, NY 10065 USA
关键词
Proton; Adaptive planning; High-risk prostate cancer; Intensity-modulated proton therapy; RADIATION-THERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY; BLADDER; VOLUME; PLANS;
D O I
10.1016/j.meddos.2023.10.001
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
To assess the performance of a knowledge -based planning (KBP) model for generating intensitymodulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans as part of an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy for patients with high -risk prostate cancer. A knowledge -based planning (KBP) model for proton adaptive treatment plan generation was developed based on thirty patient treatment plans utilizing RapidPlanTM PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The model was subsequently validated using an additional eleven patient cases. All patients in the study were administered a prescribed dose of 70.2 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicle (CTV70.2), along with 46.8 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (CTV46.8) through simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. To assess the quality of the validation knowledge -based proton plans (KBPPs), target coverage and organ -at -risk (OAR) dose -volume constraints were compared against those of clinically used expert plans using paired t -tests. The KBP model training statistics ( R2 ) (mean +/- SD, 0.763 +/- 0.167, range, 0.406 to 0.907) and chi 2 values (1.162 +/- 0.0867, 1.039-1.253) indicate acceptable model training quality. Moreover, the average total treatment planning optimization and calculation time for adaptive plan generation is approximately 10 minutes. The CTV70.2 D98% for the KBPPs (mean +/- SD, 69.1 +/- 0.08 Gy) and expert plans (69.9 +/- 0.04 Gy) shows a significant difference ( p < 0.05) but are both within 1.1 Gy of the prescribed dose which is clinically acceptable. While the maximum dose for some organs -at -risk (OARs) such as the bladder and rectum is generally higher in the KBPPs, the doses still fall within clinical constraints. Among all the OARs, most of them received comparable results to the expert plan, except the cauda equina Dmax, which shows statistical significance and was lower in the KBPPs than in expert plans (48.5 +/- 0.06 Gy vs 49.3 +/- 0.05 Gy). The generated KBPPs were clinically comparable to manually crafted plans by expert treatment planners. The adaptive plan generation process was completed within an acceptable timeframe, offering a quick same -day adaptive treatment option. Our study supports the integration of KBP as a crucial component of an ART strategy, including maintaining plan consistency, improving quality, and enhancing efficiency. This advancement in speed and adaptability promises more precise treatment in proton ART. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.
引用
收藏
页码:19 / 24
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Contemporary treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancer
    Tareen, Basir
    Kimmel, Joseph
    Huang, William C.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTICANCER THERAPY, 2010, 10 (07) : 1069 - 1076
  • [22] Dosimetric evaluation with knowledge-based planning created at different periods in volumetric-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer: a multi-institution study
    Monzen, Hajime
    Tamura, Mikoto
    Ueda, Yoshihiro
    Fukunaga, Jun-ichi
    Kamima, Tatsuya
    Muraki, Yuta
    Kubo, Kazuki
    Nakamatsu, Kiyoshi
    RADIOLOGICAL PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 13 (04) : 327 - 335
  • [23] Knowledge-based treatment planning: An inter-technique and inter-system feasibility study for prostate cancer
    Cagni, Elisabetta
    Botti, Andrea
    Micera, Renato
    Galeandro, Maria
    Sghedoni, Roberto
    Orlandi, Matteo
    Iotti, Cinzia
    Cozzi, Luca
    Iori, Mauro
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 36 : 38 - 45
  • [24] Hypofractionated Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Study
    Kubo, Nobuteru
    Kawamura, Hidemasa
    Oike, Takahiro
    Sato, Hiro
    Iwanaga, Mototaro
    Mizukami, Tatsuji
    Adachi, Akiko
    Matsui, Hiroshi
    Ito, Kazuto
    Suzuki, Kazuhiro
    Nakano, Takashi
    IN VIVO, 2019, 33 (04): : 1235 - 1241
  • [25] Comparison study of intensity modulated arc therapy using single or multiple arcs to intensity modulated radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer
    Ashamalla, Hani
    Tejwani, Ajay
    Parameritis, Ioannis
    Swamy, Uma
    Luo, Pei Ching
    Guirguis, Adel
    Lavaf, Amir
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY JOURNAL, 2013, 31 (02): : 104 - 110
  • [26] Performance of a knowledge-based planning model for optimizing intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans for partial breast irradiation
    Frederick, Amy
    Roumeliotis, Michael
    Grendarova, Petra
    Quirk, Sarah
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 23 (03):
  • [27] Comparison of different treatment planning approaches for intensity-modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for pancreatic cancer
    Stefanowicz, Sarah
    Stuetzer, Kristin
    Zschaeck, Sebastian
    Jakobi, Annika
    Troost, Esther G. C.
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2018, 13 : 228
  • [28] Optimal Treatment for High-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Ong, Wee Loon
    Koh, Tze Lui
    Millar, Jeremy
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2018, 320 (04): : 404 - 405
  • [29] A Review on the Current Treatment Paradigm in High-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Burgess, Laura
    Roy, Soumyajit
    Morgan, Scott
    Malone, Shawn
    CANCERS, 2021, 13 (17)
  • [30] Radical Prostatectomy as Primary Treatment of High-risk Prostate Cancer
    Alexandre Ingels
    Alexandre de la Taille
    Guillaume Ploussard
    Current Urology Reports, 2012, 13 : 179 - 186