Online adaptive radiotherapy: Assessment of planning technique and its impact on longitudinal plan quality robustness in pancreatic cancer

Abstract

Background and PurposePlanning on a static dataset that reflects the simulation day anatomy is routine for SBRT. We hypothesize the quality of on-table adaptive plans is similar to the baseline plan when delivering stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) for pancreatic cancer (PCa). Materials and MethodsSixty-seven inoperable PCa patients were prescribed 50 Gy/5-fraction SMART. Baseline planning included: 3–5 mm gastrointestinal (GI) PRV, 50 Gy optimization target (PTVopt) based on GI PRV, conformality rings, and contracted GTV to guide the hotspot. For each adaptation, GI anatomy was re-contoured, followed by re-optimization. Plan quality was evaluated for target coverage (TC = PTVopt V100%/volume), PTV D90% and D80%, homogeneity index (HI = PTVopt D2%/D98%), prescription isodose/target volume (PITV), low-dose conformity (D2cm = maximum dose at 2 cm from PTVopt/Rx dose), and gradient index (R50%=50% Rx isodose volume/PTVopt volume).A novel global planning metric, termed the Pancreas Adaptive Radiotherapy Score (PARTS), was developed and implemented based on GI OAR sparing, PTV/GTV coverage, and conformality. Adaptive robustness (baseline to fraction 1) and stability (difference between two fractions with highest GI PRV variation) were quantified. ResultsOAR constraints were met on all baseline (n = 67) and adaptive (n = 318) plans. Coverage for baseline/adaptive plans was mean ± SD at 44.9 ± 5.8 Gy/44.3 ± 5.5 Gy (PTV D80%), 50.1 ± 4.2 Gy/49.1 ± 4.7 Gy (PTVopt D80%), and 80%±18%/74%±18% (TC), respectively. Mean homogeneity and conformality for baseline/adaptive plans were 0.87 ± 0.25/0.81 ± 0.30 (PITV), 3.81 ± 1.87/3.87 ± 2.0 (R50%), 1.53 ± 0.23/1.55 ± 0.23 (HI), and 58%±7%/59%±7% (D2cm), respectively. PARTS was found to be a sensitive metric due to its additive influence of geometry changes on PARTS’ sub-metrics. There were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) for stability, except for PARTS (p = 0.04, median difference −0.6%). Statistical differences for robustness when significant were small for most metrics (<2.0% median). Median adaptive re-optimizations were 2. ConclusionWe describe a 5-fraction ablative SMART planning approach for PCa that is robust and stable during on-table adaption, due to gradients controlled by a GI PRV technique and the use of rings. These findings are noteworthy given that daily interfraction anatomic GI OAR differences are routine, thus necessitating on-table adaptation. This work supports feasibility towards utilizing a patient-independent, template on-table adaptive approach.