AccScience Publishing / ARNM / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/arnm.4919
Submit to ARNM
Cite this article
4
Download
29
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Dosimetric differences between online adapt-to-position and offline adapt-to-shape plans for adaptive radiotherapy in cervical cancer

Kaiwen Zhou1,2† ,  Jinhu Chen3† ,  Junfeng Zhao2 ,  Xingwei An3 ,  Yong Yin2* ,  Zhenjiang Li2*
Show Less
1 Department of Graduate, Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences), Jinan, China
2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences), Jinan City, Shandong, China
3 Academy of Medical Engineering and Translational Medicine, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
ARNM 2024, 2(4), 4919 https://doi.org/10.36922/arnm.4919
Submitted: 23 September 2024 | Accepted: 10 December 2024 | Published: 31 December 2024
© 2024 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

Radiation therapy plays a significant role in the treatment of cervical cancer. Additionally, more adaptive workflows using ATP are being implemented in the daily radiotherapy of our organization. Herein, we aimed to investigate the dosimetric differences between online ATP and offline ATS plans for magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer and determine radiotherapy modalities that address clinical requirements. In total, 25 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in this study, with 13 in the radical radiotherapy group and 12 in post-operative radiotherapy group. We aimed for the clinical target volume (CTV) to be covered by 95 – 100% of the prescribed dose (50 Gy/25 sessions/5 weeks). MR-Linac was performed daily during treatment, and the images were rigidly aligned with the local computed tomography to generate an online ATP plan. MR images acquired during the first three sessions were selected to recontour the CTV and organs at risk (OAR). Furthermore, an offline ATS plan was generated. In the radical radiotherapy group, the CTV, D98, D95 (5024.65 ± 23.34 vs. 4995.50 ± 14.99 cGy), and Dmean of the ATS were superior compared with those of the ATP. The Dmax was lower in the ATS plan than in the ATP plan. In the post-operative radiotherapy group, the CTV, Dmean, D98, and D95 (5052.61 ± 67.87 vs. 5014.41 ± 24.68 cGy) were better in the ATS plan than in the ATP plan. When evaluating the OAR in the radical radiotherapy group, the minimum doses to the bladder and rectum were greater in the ATS plan than in the ATP plan. In the post-operative radiotherapy group, the V20 of the bladder and rectum were lower in the ATS plan than in the ATP plan. Therefore, ATS is well suited for post-operative radiotherapy, whereas ATP is better suited for radical radiotherapy. Furthermore, ATP can effectively address the clinical requirements of daily workflows.

Keywords
Online adaptive radiotherapy
Adapt-to-shape
Adapt-to-position
Cervical cancer
Clinical target volume
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 82102173, 82072094, and 12275162), the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (Grant No. ZR2019LZL017), the Precision Radiotherapy Submit plan 2021HZ81, the Taishan Scholars Project of Shandong Province (Grant No. ts201712098), and the Shandong Medical Association Clinical Research Fund – Qilu Special Project (YXH2022ZX02198).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394-424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492

 

  1. Peng H, Zhang J, Xu N, Zhou Y, Tan H, Ren T. Fan beam CT-guided online adaptive external radiotherapy of uterine cervical cancer: A dosimetric evaluation. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):588. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11089-6

 

  1. Tan LT, Tanderup K, Kirisits C, et al. Image-guided adaptive radiotherapy in cervical cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29(3):284-298. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2019.02.010

 

  1. Winkel D, Bol GH, Kroon PS, et al. Adaptive radiotherapy: The Elekta Unity MR-linac concept. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019;18:54-59. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.04.001

 

  1. Eminowicz G, Rompokos V, Stacey C, Hall L, McCormack M. Understanding the impact of pelvic organ motion on dose delivered to target volumes during IMRT for cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2017;122(1):116-121. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.10.018

 

  1. Chen J, Liu P, Chen W, et al. Early changes of volume and spatial location in target and normal tissues caused by IMRT for cervical cancer. Tumori. 2016;102(6):610-613. doi: 10.5301/tj.5000413

 

  1. Yan D, Vicini F, Wong J, Martinez A. Adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42(1):123-132. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/008

 

  1. Hunt A, Hansen VN, Oelfke U, Nill S, Hafeez S. Adaptive radiotherapy enabled by MRI guidance. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018;30(11):711-719. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2018.08.001

 

  1. Yan D, Wong J, Vicini F, et al. Adaptive modification of treatment planning to minimize the deleterious effects of treatment setup errors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38(1):197-206. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(97)00229-0

 

  1. Yan D, Lockman D, Brabbins D, Tyburski L, Martinez A. An offline strategy for constructing a patient-specific planning target volume in adaptive treatment process for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(1):289-302. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)00608-8

 

  1. Han EY, Wang H, Briere TM, et al. Brain stereotactic radiosurgery using MR-guided online adaptive planning for daily setup variation: An end-to-end test. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022;23(3):e13518. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13518

 

  1. Poon DMC, Yang B, Geng H, et al. Analysis of online plan adaptation for 1.5T magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) of prostate cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2022;24:1-10. doi: 10.1007/s00432-022-03950-1

 

  1. Ikushima H, Balter P, Komaki R, et al. Daily alignment results of in-room computed tomography-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(2):473-480. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.009

 

  1. Gong W, Yao Y, Ni J, et al. Deep learning-based low-dose CT for adaptive radiotherapy of abdominal and pelvic tumors. Front Oncol. 2022;12:968537. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.968537

 

  1. Kensen CM, Janssen TM, Betgen A, et al. Effect of intrafraction adaptation on PTV margins for MRI guided online adaptive radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2022;17(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s13014-022-02079-2

 

  1. Nierer L, Eze C, da Silva Mendes V, et al. Dosimetric benefit of MR-guided online adaptive radiotherapy in different tumor entities: Liver, lung, abdominal lymph nodes, pancreas and prostate. Radiat Oncol. 2022;17(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13014-022-02021-6

 

  1. Yan D, Liang J. Expected treatment dose construction and adaptive inverse planning optimization: Implementation for offline head and neck cancer adaptive radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2013;40(2):021719. doi: 10.1118/1.4788659

 

  1. Lee VS, SchettIno G, Nisbet A. UK adaptive radiotherapy practices for head and neck cancer patients. BJR Open. 2020;2(1):20200051. doi: 10.1259/bjro.20200051

 

  1. Zhang B, Lee SW, Chen S, et al. Action levels on dose and anatomic variation for adaptive Radiation Therapy using Daily Offline Plan evaluation: Preliminary results. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019;9(1):49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.08.006

 

  1. Yap ML, Sun A, Higgins J, et al. Adaptive dose escalation using serial four-dimensional Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed tomography scans during Radiotherapy for locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016;28(12):e199-e205. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2016.08.011

 

  1. Teo TP, Ahmed SB, Kawalec P, et al. Feasibility of predicting tumor motion using online data acquired during treatment and a generalized neural network optimized with offline patient tumor trajectories. Med Phys. 2018;45(2):830-845. doi: 10.1002/mp.12731

 

  1. Paulson ES, Ahunbay E, Chen X, et al. 4D-MRI driven MR-guided online adaptive radiotherapy for abdominal stereotactic body radiation therapy on a high field MR-Linac: Implementation and initial clinical experience. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2020;23:72-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2020.05.002

 

  1. Tseng CL, Chen H, Stewart J, et al. High grade glioma radiation therapy on a high field 1.5 Tesla MR-Linac-workflow and initial experience with daily adapt-to-position (ATP) MR guidance: A first report. Front Oncol. 2022;12: 1060098. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1060098

 

  1. Ruggieri R, Rigo M, Naccarato S, et al. Adaptive SBRT by 1.5 T MR-linac for prostate cancer: On the accuracy of dose delivery in view of the prolonged session time. Phys Med. 2020;80:34-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.09.026

 

  1. Noel CE, Parikh PJ, Spencer CR, et al. Comparison of onboard low-field magnetic resonance imaging versus onboard computed tomography for anatomy visualization in radiotherapy. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1474-1482. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1062541

 

  1. Yousaf T, Dervenoulas G, Politis M. Advances in MRI methodology. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;141:31-76. doi: 10.1016/bs.irn.2018.08.008

 

  1. Weygand J, Fuller CD, Ibbott GS, et al. Spatial precision in magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiation therapy: The role of geometric distortion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95:1304-1316. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.059

 

  1. Gupta A, Dunlop A, Mitchell A, et al. Online adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancers on the MR linear Accelerator: Introducing a novel modified Adapt-to-Shape approach. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2021;32:48-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.11.001

 

  1. Dassen MG, Janssen T, Kusters M, et al. Comparing adaptation strategies in MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Implications for treatment margins. Radiother Oncol. 2023;186:109761. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109761

 

  1. Parchur AK, Lim S, Nasief HG, et al. Auto-detection of necessity for MRI-guided online adaptive replanning using a machine learning classifier. Med Phys. 2023;50(1):440-448. doi: 10.1002/mp.16047
Share
Back to top
Advances in Radiotherapy & Nuclear Medicine, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4392 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept