ABSTRACT
The optimal approach for magnetic resonance imaging-guided online adaptive radiotherapy is currently unknown and needs to consider patient on-couch time constraints. The aim of this study was to compare two different plan optimization approaches. The comparison was performed in 238 clinically applied online-adapted treatment plans from 55 patients, in which the approach of re-optimization was selected based on the physician's choice. For 33 patients where both optimization approaches were used at least once, the median treatment planning dose metrics of both target and organ at risk differed less than 1%. Therefore, we concluded that beam segment weight optimization was chosen adequately for most patients without compromising plan quality.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Online adaptive radiotherapy is intended to prevent plan degradation caused by inter-fractional tumor volume and shape changes, but time limitations make online re-planning challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of online-adapted plans to their respective reference treatment plans. METHODS: Fifty-two patients treated on a ViewRay MRIdian Linac were included in this retrospective study. In total 238 online-adapted plans were analyzed, which were optimized with either changing of the segment weights (n = 85) or full re-optimization (n = 153). Five different treatment sites were evaluated: prostate, abdomen, liver, lung and pelvis. Dosimetric parameters of gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), 2 cm ring around the PTV and organs at risk (OARs) were considered. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess differences between online-adapted and reference treatment plans, p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The average duration of the online adaptation, consisting of contour editing, plan optimization and quality assurance (QA), was 24 ± 6 min. The GTV was slightly larger (average ± SD: 1.9% ± 9.0%) in the adapted plans than in the reference plans (p < 0.001). GTV-D95% exhibited no significant changes when considering all plans, but GTV-D2% increased by 0.40% ± 1.5% on average (p < 0.001). There was a very small yet significant decrease in GTV-coverage for the abdomen plans. The ring Dmean increased on average by 1.0% ± 3.6% considering all plans (p < 0.001). There was a significant reduction of the dose to the rectum of 4.7% ± 16% on average (p < 0.001) for prostate plans. CONCLUSIONS: Dosimetric quality of online-adapted plans was comparable to reference treatment plans and OAR dose was either comparable or decreased, depending on treatment site. However, dose spillage was slightly increased.
