Advancing knowledge-based intensity modulated proton planning for adaptive treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

被引:0
|
作者
Johnson, Casey L. [1 ]
Hasan, Shaakir [1 ]
Huang, Sheng [1 ]
Lin, Haibo [1 ,2 ]
Gorovets, Daniel [1 ,2 ]
Shim, Andy [1 ]
Apgar, Thomas [1 ]
Yu, Francis [1 ]
Tsai, Pingfang [1 ]
机构
[1] New York Proton Ctr, 225 East 126th St, New York, NY 10035 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, New York, NY 10065 USA
关键词
Proton; Adaptive planning; High-risk prostate cancer; Intensity-modulated proton therapy; RADIATION-THERAPY; RADIOTHERAPY; BLADDER; VOLUME; PLANS;
D O I
10.1016/j.meddos.2023.10.001
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
To assess the performance of a knowledge -based planning (KBP) model for generating intensitymodulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment plans as part of an adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategy for patients with high -risk prostate cancer. A knowledge -based planning (KBP) model for proton adaptive treatment plan generation was developed based on thirty patient treatment plans utilizing RapidPlanTM PT (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The model was subsequently validated using an additional eleven patient cases. All patients in the study were administered a prescribed dose of 70.2 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicle (CTV70.2), along with 46.8 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (CTV46.8) through simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. To assess the quality of the validation knowledge -based proton plans (KBPPs), target coverage and organ -at -risk (OAR) dose -volume constraints were compared against those of clinically used expert plans using paired t -tests. The KBP model training statistics ( R2 ) (mean +/- SD, 0.763 +/- 0.167, range, 0.406 to 0.907) and chi 2 values (1.162 +/- 0.0867, 1.039-1.253) indicate acceptable model training quality. Moreover, the average total treatment planning optimization and calculation time for adaptive plan generation is approximately 10 minutes. The CTV70.2 D98% for the KBPPs (mean +/- SD, 69.1 +/- 0.08 Gy) and expert plans (69.9 +/- 0.04 Gy) shows a significant difference ( p < 0.05) but are both within 1.1 Gy of the prescribed dose which is clinically acceptable. While the maximum dose for some organs -at -risk (OARs) such as the bladder and rectum is generally higher in the KBPPs, the doses still fall within clinical constraints. Among all the OARs, most of them received comparable results to the expert plan, except the cauda equina Dmax, which shows statistical significance and was lower in the KBPPs than in expert plans (48.5 +/- 0.06 Gy vs 49.3 +/- 0.05 Gy). The generated KBPPs were clinically comparable to manually crafted plans by expert treatment planners. The adaptive plan generation process was completed within an acceptable timeframe, offering a quick same -day adaptive treatment option. Our study supports the integration of KBP as a crucial component of an ART strategy, including maintaining plan consistency, improving quality, and enhancing efficiency. This advancement in speed and adaptability promises more precise treatment in proton ART. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.
引用
收藏
页码:19 / 24
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A Treatment Planning Study of Moderately Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) to the Prostate and Pelvic Combined with Extremely Hypofractionated IMPT Boost to Prostate with Urethral Dose Reduction for High-Risk Prostate Cancer
    Liu, S.
    Gao, X.
    Ma, M.
    Zhao, Z.
    Qin, S.
    Zhao, B.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (01): : E782 - E782
  • [22] Anatomical robustness of a proton planning class solution for high-risk prostate cancer
    Visser, E.
    Petersen, S.
    Tilbaek, S.
    Bentzen, L.
    Ronde, H.
    Stolarczyk, L.
    Vestergaard, A.
    Johansen, T.
    Klitgaard, R.
    Pilskog, S.
    Sondergaard, J.
    Hoyer, M.
    Muren, L.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2023, 182 : S1719 - S1720
  • [23] Helical tomotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: A treatment planning comparison
    Schwarz, Marco
    Pierelli, Alessio
    Fiorino, Claudio
    Fellin, Francesco
    Cattaneo, Giovanni Mauro
    Cozzarini, Cesare
    Di Muzio, Nadia
    Calandrino, Riccardo
    Widesott, Lamberto
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 98 (01) : 74 - 80
  • [24] Improved Beam Angle Arrangement in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Treatment Planning for Localized Prostate Cancer
    Cao, Wenhua
    Lim, Gino J.
    Li, Yupeng
    Zhu, X. Ronald
    Zhang, Xiaodong
    CANCERS, 2015, 7 (02): : 574 - 584
  • [25] An Ensemble Approach to Knowledge-Based Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning
    Zhang, Jiahan
    Wu, Q. Jackie
    Xie, Tianyi
    Sheng, Yang
    Yin, Fang-Fang
    Ge, Yaorong
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2018, 8
  • [26] Robust treatment planning for intensity modulated radiotherapy of prostate cancer based on coverage probabilities
    Baum, C
    Alber, M
    Birkner, M
    Nüsslin, F
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2006, 78 (01) : 27 - 35
  • [27] Influence of cleaned-up commercial knowledge-based treatment planning on volumetric-modulated arc therapy of prostate cancer
    Tamura, Mikoto
    Monzen, Hajime
    Matsumoto, Kenji
    Kubo, Kazuki
    Ueda, Yoshihiro
    Kamima, Tatsuya
    Inada, Masahiro
    Doi, Hiroshi
    Nakamatsu, Kiyoshi
    Nishimura, Yasumasa
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 45 (02) : 71 - 77
  • [28] Novel knowledge-based treatment planning model for hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients
    Chatterjee, Avishek
    Serban, Monica
    Faria, Sergio
    Souhami, Luis
    Cury, Fabio
    Seuntjens, Jan
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2020, 69 : 36 - 43
  • [29] An Inter-Institutional Comparison of Knowledge-Based IMRT Treatment Planning for Prostate Cancer
    Chanyavanich, V.
    Das, S.
    Lo, J.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (06)
  • [30] Whole pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a preliminary report
    Joo, Ji Hyeon
    Kim, Yeon Joo
    Kim, Young Seok
    Choi, Eun Kyung
    Kim, Jong Hoon
    Lee, Sang-wook
    Song, Si Yeol
    Yoon, Sang Min
    Kim, Su Ssan
    Park, Jin-hong
    Jeong, Yuri
    Ahn, Hanjong
    Kim, Choung-Soo
    Lee, Jae-Lyun
    Do Ahn, Seung
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY JOURNAL, 2013, 31 (04): : 199 - 205