On the Importance of Individualized, Non-Coplanar Beam Configurations in Mediastinal Lymphoma Radiotherapy, Optimized With Automated Planning.
VMAT versus IMRT
automated multi-criterial planning (MCO)
comparison
individualized beam angle optimization
mediastinal lymphoma
non-coplanar angle
number of beams
personalized radiotherapy
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
21
10
2020
accepted:
09
03
2021
entrez:
3
5
2021
pubmed:
4
5
2021
medline:
4
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Literature is non-conclusive regarding selection of beam configurations in radiotherapy for mediastinal lymphoma (ML) radiotherapy, and published studies are based on manual planning with its inherent limitations. In this study, coplanar and non-coplanar beam configurations were systematically compared, using a large number of automatically generated plans. An autoplanning workflow, including beam configuration optimization, was configured for young female ML patients. For each of 25 patients, 24 plans with different beam configurations were generated with autoplanning: 11 coplanar CP_x plans and 11 non-coplanar NCP_x plans with x = 5 to 15 IMRT beams with computer-optimized, patient-specific configurations, and the coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar Butterfly VMAT (B-VMAT) beam angle class solutions (600 plans in total). Autoplans compared favorably with manually generated, clinically delivered plans, ensuring that beam configuration comparisons were performed with high quality plans. There was no beam configuration approach that was best for all patients and all plan parameters. Overall there was a clear tendency towards higher plan quality with non-coplanar configurations (NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT). NCP_x≥12 produced highly conformal plans with on average reduced high doses in lungs and patient and also a reduced heart Dmean, while B-VMAT resulted in reduced low-dose spread in lungs and left breast. Non-coplanar beam configurations were favorable for young female mediastinal lymphoma patients, with patient-specific and plan-parameter-dependent dosimetric advantages of NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT. Individualization of beam configuration approach, considering also the faster delivery of B-VMAT vs. NCP_x≥12, can importantly improve the treatments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Literature is non-conclusive regarding selection of beam configurations in radiotherapy for mediastinal lymphoma (ML) radiotherapy, and published studies are based on manual planning with its inherent limitations. In this study, coplanar and non-coplanar beam configurations were systematically compared, using a large number of automatically generated plans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
An autoplanning workflow, including beam configuration optimization, was configured for young female ML patients. For each of 25 patients, 24 plans with different beam configurations were generated with autoplanning: 11 coplanar CP_x plans and 11 non-coplanar NCP_x plans with x = 5 to 15 IMRT beams with computer-optimized, patient-specific configurations, and the coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar Butterfly VMAT (B-VMAT) beam angle class solutions (600 plans in total).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Autoplans compared favorably with manually generated, clinically delivered plans, ensuring that beam configuration comparisons were performed with high quality plans. There was no beam configuration approach that was best for all patients and all plan parameters. Overall there was a clear tendency towards higher plan quality with non-coplanar configurations (NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT). NCP_x≥12 produced highly conformal plans with on average reduced high doses in lungs and patient and also a reduced heart Dmean, while B-VMAT resulted in reduced low-dose spread in lungs and left breast.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Non-coplanar beam configurations were favorable for young female mediastinal lymphoma patients, with patient-specific and plan-parameter-dependent dosimetric advantages of NCP_x≥12 and B-VMAT. Individualization of beam configuration approach, considering also the faster delivery of B-VMAT vs. NCP_x≥12, can importantly improve the treatments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33937025
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.619929
pmc: PMC8082440
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
619929Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Rossi, Cambraia Lopes, Marques Leitão, Janus, van de Pol, Breedveld, Penninkhof and Heijmen.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Jul 1;86(3):407-13
pubmed: 23523322
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Apr 15;9:94
pubmed: 24735767
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Jul 06;63(13):135024
pubmed: 29846178
Med Phys. 2011 Feb;38(2):754-64
pubmed: 21452713
Acta Oncol. 2018 Nov;57(11):1490-1498
pubmed: 29966472
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Mar 1;85(3):866-72
pubmed: 22658513
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Oct 19;13(1):202
pubmed: 30340604
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 May 1;92(1):161-8
pubmed: 25863763
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Mar;114(3):395-401
pubmed: 25725503
Blood. 2017 Apr 20;129(16):2257-2265
pubmed: 28143884
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Sep;138:52-58
pubmed: 31146071
Ann Oncol. 2012 May;23(5):1259-1266
pubmed: 21980193
Ann Oncol. 2013 Aug;24(8):2113-8
pubmed: 23619032
Blood. 2018 Oct 18;132(16):1635-1646
pubmed: 30108066
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016 Nov - Dec;6(6):442-449
pubmed: 27374191
Onco Targets Ther. 2019 Oct 01;12:8033-8046
pubmed: 31632057
Med Phys. 2012 Feb;39(2):951-63
pubmed: 22320804
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jun;175(6):1007-17
pubmed: 25915855
Blood. 2007 Mar 1;109(5):1878-86
pubmed: 17119114
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2012 Oct-Dec;2(4):296-305
pubmed: 24674168
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 May 1;92(1):144-52
pubmed: 25670544
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Apr;123(1):49-56
pubmed: 28341061
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 24;373(26):2499-511
pubmed: 26699166
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 15;99(4):825-842
pubmed: 28943076
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 May 1;92(1):175-82
pubmed: 25863764
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 Feb 6;94(3):182-92
pubmed: 11830608
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2013 Jan;25(1):49-58
pubmed: 22889569
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 1;29(31):4096-104
pubmed: 21969511
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015 Sep 08;16(5):167–178
pubmed: 26699298
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Feb 23;107(4):
pubmed: 25713164
Radiat Oncol. 2007 Mar 15;2:13
pubmed: 17362522
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Jun 1;95(2):707-11
pubmed: 27020112
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jan 20;34(3):235-43
pubmed: 26573075
Radiat Oncol. 2012 Nov 02;7:186
pubmed: 23122028
JAMA. 2003 Jul 23;290(4):465-75
pubmed: 12876089
Haematologica. 2017 Oct;102(10):1748-1757
pubmed: 28912173
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1126-35
pubmed: 25539371
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Dec;117(3):467-72
pubmed: 26277431
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Mar 7;60(5):1831-43
pubmed: 25658486
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Sep 10;27(26):4239-46
pubmed: 19667275
Blood. 2002 Sep 15;100(6):1989-96
pubmed: 12200357
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jul 15;83(4):1232-7
pubmed: 22270170
Lancet Haematol. 2015 Nov;2(11):e492-502
pubmed: 26686259
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 14;368(11):987-98
pubmed: 23484825