Nenoff Lena, Buti Gregory, Bobić Mislav, Lalonde Arthur, Nesteruk Konrad P, Winey Brian, Sharp Gregory Charles, Sudhyadhom Atchar, Paganetti Harald
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Physics Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Aug 14;14(16):3926. doi: 10.3390/cancers14163926.
Currently, adaptive strategies require time- and resource-intensive manual structure corrections. This study compares different strategies: optimization without manual structure correction, adaptation with physician-drawn structures, and no adaptation. Strategies were compared for 16 patients with pancreas, liver, and head and neck (HN) cancer with 1-5 repeated images during treatment: 'reference adaptation', with structures drawn by a physician; 'single-DIR adaptation', using a single set of deformably propagated structures; 'multi-DIR adaptation', using robust planning with multiple deformed structure sets; 'conservative adaptation', using the intersection and union of all deformed structures; 'probabilistic adaptation', using the probability of a voxel belonging to the structure in the optimization weight; and 'no adaptation'. Plans were evaluated using reference structures and compared using a scoring system. The reference adaptation with physician-drawn structures performed best, and no adaptation performed the worst. For pancreas and liver patients, adaptation with a single DIR improved the plan quality over no adaptation. For HN patients, integrating structure uncertainties brought an additional benefit. If resources for manual structure corrections would prevent online adaptation, manual correction could be replaced by a fast 'plausibility check', and plans could be adapted with correction-free adaptation strategies. Including structure uncertainties in the optimization has the potential to make online adaptation more automatable.
目前,自适应策略需要耗费时间和资源的手动结构校正。本研究比较了不同的策略:无需手动结构校正的优化、基于医生绘制结构的自适应以及无自适应。对16例患有胰腺癌、肝癌和头颈癌(HN)的患者在治疗期间有1 - 5次重复图像的情况进行了策略比较:“参考自适应”,由医生绘制结构;“单DIR自适应”,使用一组可变形传播的结构;“多DIR自适应”,使用具有多个变形结构集的稳健规划;“保守自适应”,使用所有变形结构的交集和并集;“概率自适应”,在优化权重中使用体素属于结构的概率;以及“无自适应”。使用参考结构对计划进行评估,并使用评分系统进行比较。基于医生绘制结构的参考自适应表现最佳,无自适应表现最差。对于胰腺癌和肝癌患者,单DIR自适应比无自适应改善了计划质量。对于HN患者,整合结构不确定性带来了额外的益处。如果用于手动结构校正的资源会阻碍在线自适应,手动校正可以被快速的“合理性检查”所取代,并且计划可以采用无校正的自适应策略进行自适应。在优化中纳入结构不确定性有可能使在线自适应更具自动化。