6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Simulating an intra-fraction adaptive workflow to enable PTV margin reduction in MRIgART volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate SBRT

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          This study simulates a novel prostate SBRT intra-fraction re-optimization workflow in MRIgART to account for prostate intra-fraction motion and evaluates the dosimetric benefit of reducing PTV margins.

          Materials and methods

          VMAT prostate SBRT treatment plans were created for 10 patients using two different PTV margins, one with a 5 mm margin except 3 mm posteriorly (standard) and another using uniform 2 mm margins (reduced). All plans were prescribed to 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions and adapted onto each daily MRI dataset. An intra-fraction adaptive workflow was simulated for the reduced margin group by synchronizing the radiation delivery with target position from cine MRI imaging. Intra-fraction delivered dose was reconstructed and prostate DVH metrics were evaluated under three conditions for the reduced margin plans: Without motion compensation (no-adapt), with a single adapt prior to treatment (ATP), and lastly for intra-fraction re-optimization during delivery (intra). Bladder and rectum DVH metrics were compared between the standard and reduced margin plans.

          Results

          As expected, rectum V18 Gy was reduced by 4.4 ± 3.9%, D1cc was reduced by 12.2 ± 6.8% (3.4 ± 2.3 Gy), while bladder reductions were 7.8 ± 5.6% for V18 Gy, and 9.6 ± 7.3% (3.4 ± 2.5 Gy) for D1cc for the reduced margin reference plans compared to the standard PTV margin. For the intrafraction replanning approach, average intra-fraction optimization times were 40.0 ± 2.9 seconds, less than the time to deliver one of the four VMAT arcs (104.4 ± 9.3 seconds) used for treatment delivery. When accounting for intra-fraction motion, prostate V36.25 Gy was on average 96.5 ± 4.0%, 99.1 ± 1.3%, and 99.6 ± 0.4 for the non-adapt, ATP, and intra-adapt groups, respectively. The minimum dose received by the prostate was less than 95% of the prescription dose in 84%, 36%, and 10% of fractions, for the non-adapt, ATP, and intra-adapt groups, respectively.

          Conclusions

          Intra-fraction re-optimization improves prostate coverage, specifically the minimum dose to the prostate, and enables PTV margin reduction and subsequent OAR sparing. Fast re-optimizations enable uninterrupted treatment delivery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101.

          Task Group 101 of the AAPM has prepared this report for medical physicists, clinicians, and therapists in order to outline the best practice guidelines for the external-beam radiation therapy technique referred to as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The task group report includes a review of the literature to identify reported clinical findings and expected outcomes for this treatment modality. Information is provided for establishing a SBRT program, including protocols, equipment, resources, and QA procedures. Additionally, suggestions for developing consistent documentation for prescribing, reporting, and recording SBRT treatment delivery is provided.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Errors and margins in radiotherapy.

            Clinical radiotherapy procedures aim at high accuracy. However, there are many error sources that act during treatment preparation and execution that limit the accuracy. As a consequence, a safety margin is required to ensure that the planned dose is actually delivered to the target for (almost) all patients. Before treatment planning, a planning computed tomography scan is made. In particular, motion of skin with respect to the internal anatomy limits the reproducibility of this step, introducing a systematic setup error. The second important error source is organ motion. The tumor is imaged in an arbitrary position, leading to a systematic organ motion error. The image may also be distorted because of the interference of the scanning process and organ motion. A further systematic error introduced during treatment planning is caused by the delineation process. During treatment, the most important errors are setup error and organ motion leading to day-to-day variations. There are many ways to define the margins required for these errors. In this article, an overview is given of errors in radiotherapy and margin recipes, based on physical and biological considerations. Respiration motion is treated separately.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

              Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has gained increased attention due to its proposed high radiation-fraction sensitivity. Recent reports from studies comparing moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy support the clinical use of moderate hypofractionation. To date, there are no published randomised studies on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. Here, we report the outcomes of the Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC phase 3 trial with the aim to show non-inferiority of ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1900973Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2003267Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2277437Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/239507Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Oncol
                Front Oncol
                Front. Oncol.
                Frontiers in Oncology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2234-943X
                08 January 2024
                2023
                : 13
                : 1325105
                Affiliations
                [1] Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics , Iowa City, IA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Susanne Rogers, Aarau Cantonal Hospital, Switzerland

                Reviewed by: Paul Riviere, University of California, San Diego, United States

                Yoichi Watanabe, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, United States

                *Correspondence: Jeffrey Snyder, Jeffrey-snyder@ 123456uiowa.edu
                Article
                10.3389/fonc.2023.1325105
                10800949
                38260830
                bc750a23-553e-48e5-bce1-516b649b96ad
                Copyright © 2024 Snyder, Smith, Aubin, Shepard and Hyer

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 20 October 2023
                : 18 December 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 70, Pages: 13, Words: 5872
                Funding
                The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was partially supported through a research grant with Elekta AB, Stockholm Sweden.
                Categories
                Oncology
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                Radiation Oncology

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                vmat (volumetric modulated arc therapy),intra-fraction,mrigrt,adaptive,tracking,prostate sbrt treatment,mr-linac

                Comments

                Comment on this article