Callens Dylan, Aerts Karel, Berkovic Patrick, Vandewinckele Liesbeth, Lambrecht Maarten, Crijns Wouter
Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2024 Jan 12;29:100236. doi: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2024.100236. eCollection 2024 Mar.
Decisions for plan-adaptations may be impacted by a transitioning from one dose-calculation algorithm to another. This study examines the impact on dosimetric-triggered offline adaptation in LA-NSCLC in the context of a transition from superposition/convolution dose calculation algorithm (Type-B) to linear Boltzmann equation solver dose calculation algorithms (Type-C).
MATERIALS & METHODS: Two dosimetric-triggered offline adaptive treatment workflows are compared in a retrospective planning study on 30 LA-NSCLC patients. One workflow uses a Type-B dose calculation algorithm and the other uses Type-C. Treatment plans were re-calculated on the anatomy of a mid-treatment synthetic-CT utilizing the same algorithm utilized for pre-treatment planning. Assessment for plan-adaptation was evaluated through a decision model based on target coverage and OAR constraint violation. The impact of algorithm during treatment planning was controlled for by recalculating the Type-B plan with Type-C.
In the Type-B approach, 13 patients required adaptation due to OAR-constraint violations, while 15 patients required adaptation in the Type-C approach. For 8 out of 30 cases, the decision to adapt was opposite in both approaches. None of the patients in our dataset encountered CTV-target underdosage that necessitated plan-adaptation. Upon recalculating the Type-B approach with the Type-C algorithm, it was shown that 10 of the original Type-B plans revealed clinically relevant dose reductions (≥3%) on the CTV in their original plans. This re-calculation identified 21 plans in total that required ART.
In our study, nearly one-third of the cases would have a different decision for plan-adaption when utilizing Type-C instead of Type-B. There was no substantial increase in the total number of plan-adaptations for LA-NSCLC. However, Type-C is more sensitive to altered anatomy during treatment compared to Type-B. Recalculating Type-B plans with the Type-C algorithm revealed an increase from 13 to 21 cases triggering ART.
从一种剂量计算算法转换到另一种算法可能会影响计划调整的决策。本研究在从叠加/卷积剂量计算算法(B型)转换为线性玻尔兹曼方程求解器剂量计算算法(C型)的背景下,考察了其对局部晚期非小细胞肺癌(LA-NSCLC)中剂量触发的离线调整的影响。
在一项对30例LA-NSCLC患者的回顾性计划研究中,比较了两种剂量触发的离线自适应治疗工作流程。一种工作流程使用B型剂量计算算法,另一种使用C型。利用与治疗前计划相同的算法,在治疗中期合成CT的解剖结构上重新计算治疗计划。通过基于靶区覆盖和危及器官(OAR)约束违反的决策模型评估计划调整情况。通过用C型算法重新计算B型计划来控制算法在治疗计划期间的影响。
在B型方法中,13例患者因OAR约束违反需要调整,而在C型方法中有15例患者需要调整。在30例病例中,有8例的调整决策在两种方法中相反。我们数据集中没有患者遇到需要计划调整的临床靶区(CTV)靶区剂量不足情况。在用C型算法重新计算B型方法时,结果显示,最初的10个B型计划在其原始计划中显示出CTV上有临床相关的剂量降低(≥3%)。这种重新计算总共确定了21个需要自适应放疗(ART)的计划。
在我们的研究中,当使用C型而非B型时,近三分之一的病例在计划调整上会有不同的决策。LA-NSCLC计划调整的总数没有实质性增加。然而,与B型相比,C型在治疗期间对解剖结构变化更敏感。用C型算法重新计算B型计划显示,触发ART的病例从13例增加到21例。