In silico evaluation and feasibility of near margin-less head and neck daily adaptive radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: We explore the potential dosimetric benefits of reducing treatment volumes through daily adaptive radiation therapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients using the Ethos system/Intelligent Optimizer Engine (IOE). We hypothesize reducing treatment volumes afforded by daily adaption will significantly reduce the dose to adjacent organs at risk. We also explore the capability of the Ethos IOE to accommodate this highly conformal approach in HNC radiation therapy. METHODS: Ten HNC patients from a phase II trial were chosen, and their cone-beam CT (CBCT) scans were uploaded to the adaptive RT (ART) emulator. A new initial reference plan was generated using both a 1 mm and 5 mm planning target volume (PTV) expansion. Daily adaptive ART plans (1 mm) were simulated from the clinical CBCT taken every fifth fraction. Additionally, using physician-modified ART contours the larger 5 mm plan was recalculated on this recontoured on daily anatomy. Changes in target and OAR contours were measured using Dice coefficients as a surrogate of clinician effort. PTV coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) doses were statistically compared, and the robustness of each ART plan was evaluated at fractions 5 and 35 to observe if OAR doses were within 3 Gy of pre-plan. RESULTS: This study involved six patients with oropharynx and four with larynx cancer, totaling 70 adaptive fractions. The primary and nodal gross tumor volumes (GTV) required the most adjustments, with median Dice scores of 0.88 (range: 0.80-0.93) and 0.83 (range: 0.66-0.91), respectively. For the 5th and 35th fraction plans, 80 % of structures met robustness criteria (quartile 1-3: 67-100 % and 70-90 %). Adaptive planning improved median PTV V100% coverage for doses of 70 Gy (96 % vs. 95.6 %), 66.5 Gy (98.5 % vs. 76.5 %), and 63 Gy (98.9 % vs. 74.9 %) (p < 0.03). Implementing ART with total volume reduction yielded median dose reductions of 7-12 Gy to key organs-at-risk (OARs) like submandibular glands, parotids, oral cavity, and constrictors (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The IOE enables feasible daily ART treatments with reduced margins while enhancing target coverage and reducing OAR doses for HNC patients. A phase II trial recently finished accrual and forthcoming analysis will determine if these dosimetric improvements correlate with improved patient-reported outcomes.

Evaluating machine learning enhanced intelligent-optimization-engine (IOE) performance for ethos head-and-neck (HN) plan generation.

PURPOSE: Varian Ethos utilizes novel intelligent-optimization-engine (IOE) designed to automate the planning. However, this introduced a black box approach to plan optimization and challenge for planners to improve plan quality. This study aims to evaluate machine-learning-guided initial reference plan generation approaches for head & neck (H&N) adaptive radiotherapy (ART). METHODS: Twenty previously treated patients treated on C-arm/Ring-mounted were retroactively re-planned in the Ethos planning system using a fixed 18-beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) template. Clinical goals for IOE input were generated using (1) in-house deep-learning 3D-dose predictor (AI-Guided) (2) commercial knowledge-based planning (KBP) model with universal RTOG-based population criteria (KBP-RTOG) and (3) an RTOG-based constraint template only (RTOG) for in-depth analysis of IOE sensitivity. Similar training data was utilized for both models. Plans were optimized until their respective criteria were achieved or DVH-estimation band was satisfied. Plans were normalized such that the highest PTV dose level received 95% coverage. Target coverage, high-impact organs-at-risk (OAR) and plan deliverability was assessed in comparison to clinical (benchmark) plans. Statistical significance was evaluated using a paired two-tailed student t-test. RESULTS: AI-guided plans were superior to both KBP-RTOG and RTOG-only plans with respect to clinical benchmark cases. Overall, OAR doses were comparable or improved with AI-guided plans versus benchmark, while they increased with KBP-RTOG and RTOG plans. However, all plans generally satisfied the RTOG criteria. Heterogeneity Index (HI) was on average <1.07 for all plans. Average modulation factor was 12.2 ± 1.9 (p = n.s), 13.1 ± 1.4 (p = <0.001), 11.5 ± 1.3 (p = n.s.) and 12.2 ± 1.9 for KBP-RTOG, AI-Guided, RTOG and benchmark plans, respectively. CONCLUSION: AI-guided plans were the highest quality. Both KBP-enabled and RTOG-only plans are feasible approaches as clinics adopt ART workflows. Similar to constrained optimization, the IOE is sensitive to clinical input goals and we recommend comparable input to an institution's planning directive dosimetric criteria.

Clinical experience on patient-specific quality assurance for CBCT-based online adaptive treatment plan.

PURPOSE: Ethos CBCT-based adaptive radiotherapy (ART) system can generate an online adaptive plan by re-optimizing the initial reference plan based on the patient anatomy at the treatment. The optimization process is fully automated without any room for human intervention. Due to the change in anatomy, the ART plan can be significantly different from the initial plan in terms of plan parameters such as the aperture shapes and number of monitor units (MUs). In this study, we investigated the feasibility of using calculation-based patient specific QA for ART plans in conjunction with measurement-based and calculation-based QA for initial plans to establish an action level for the online ART patient-specific QA. METHODS: A cohort of 98 cases treated on CBCT-based ART system were collected for this study. We performed measurement-based QA using ArcCheck and calculation-based QA using Mobius for both the initial plan and the ART plan for analysis. For online the ART plan, Mobius calculation was conducted prior to the delivery, while ArcCheck measurement was delivered on the same day after the treatment. We first investigated the modulation factors (MFs) and MU numbers of the initial plans and ART plans, respectively. The γ passing rates of initial and ART plan QA were analyzed. Then action limits were derived for QA calculation and measurement for both initial and online ART plans, respectively, from 30 randomly selected patient cases, and were evaluated using the other 68 patient cases. RESULTS: The difference in MF between initial plan and ART-plan was 12.9% ± 12.7% which demonstrates their significant difference in plan parameters. Based on the patient QA results, pre-treatment calculation and measurement results are generally well aligned with ArcCheck measurement results for online ART plans, illustrating their feasibility as an indicator of failure in online ART QA measurements. Furthermore, using 30 randomly selected patient cases, the γ analysis action limit derived for initial plans and ART plans are 89.6% and 90.4% in ArcCheck QA (2%/2 mm) and are 92.4% and 93.6% in Mobius QA(3%/2 mm), respectively. According to the calculated action limits, the ArcCheck measurements for all the initial and ART plans passed QA successfully while the Mobius calculation action limits flagged seven and four failure cases respectively for initial plans and ART plans, respectively. CONCLUSION: An ART plan can be substantially different from the initial plan, and therefore a separate session of ART plan QA is needed to ensure treatment safety and quality. The pre-treatment QA calculation via Mobius can serve as a reliable indicator of failure in online ART plan QA. However, given that Ethos ART system is still relatively new, ArcCheck measurement of initial plan is still in practice. It may be skipped as we gain more experience and have better understanding of the system.