Frontiers in oncology · 2024
Simulating an intra-fraction adaptive workflow to enable PTV margin reduction in MRIgART volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate SBRT.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Snyder Jeffrey, Smith Blake, Aubin Joel St, Shepard Andrew, Hyer Daniel
Аннотация
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.
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.